| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Aetherist" |
| Date: |
24 Sep 2006 03:35:10 PM |
| Object: |
MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
In (MO)dified (N)ewtonian (D)ynamics it is proposed that the flat
galactic rotation profiles observed is due to a modification to
Newton's force equation such that,
F = ma
is modified to be,
F = kma
Where,
k = µ(x)
and µ and x are arbitrarily determined constants.
Further, x is defined to be the ratio of the actual acceleration (a)
and constant acceleration (a'), i.e.,
x = a/a'
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics for
more detail.
When a >> 1 µ(a/a') = unity (1) and when a/a' << 1 then µ(a/a') = a/a'
This characteristic is a signature of the exponential form,
-x
f(x) = 1 - e
when x << 1 f(x) = x, and as x -> infinity, f(x) -> unity...
In Le Sage's theory the basic model is of the fundamental form,
-x
d¿ = ¿ - ¿e
Where the exponential represents the amount of the impingent flux
that exiting an attenuating body. When x << unity the result is,
d¿ = ¿x
and as x -> infinity we simply have,
d¿ = ¿
Since in Le Sage's model it is the net (delta) in the flux ¿ produces
the acceleration (and force) on any mass m at r we find a perfect
one to one correlation in both mathematical form and function to MOND.
Both theories will predicts the same result under similar mathematical
constraints. It also provides an explanation and basis for MOND's
arbitrarily assumes constants...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 02:41:28 PM |
|
|
"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:jgkdh25q1lpcma72t9lafsc04lfhrpsqn5@4ax.com...
In (MO)dified (N)ewtonian (D)ynamics it is proposed that the flat
galactic rotation profiles observed is due to a modification to
Newton's force equation such that,
F = ma
is modified to be,
F = kma
Where,
k = µ(x)
and µ and x are arbitrarily determined constants.
No they aren't, good grief. µ is a scalar multiplier
that is asymptotic to |a| as a -> 0.
"µ(x) is a function that for a given variable x
gives 1 if x is much larger than 1 ( x?1 ) and
gives x if x is much smaller than 1 ( x?1 )."
The correct basic MOND equation is:
F = m.a.µ(|a|/A)
where A is a constant around 10^-10 m/s^2.
F and a are vectors while |a| is the magnitude as
usual.
For a >> A, we recover Newton's second law: F ~ m.a
For a << A, that becomes: F ~ m.(|a|/A).a
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics for
more detail.
Good advice, you should have taken it.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aetherist" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 06:15:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:41:28 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:jgkdh25q1lpcma72t9lafsc04lfhrpsqn5@4ax.com...
In (MO)dified (N)ewtonian (D)ynamics it is proposed that the flat
galactic rotation profiles observed is due to a modification to
Newton's force equation such that,
F = ma
is modified to be,
F = kma
Where,
k = µ(x)
and µ and x are arbitrarily determined constants.
No they aren't, good grief. µ is a scalar multiplier
that is asymptotic to |a| as a -> 0.
"µ(x) is a function that for a given variable x
gives 1 if x is much larger than 1 ( x?1 ) and
gives x if x is much smaller than 1 ( x?1 )."
The correct basic MOND equation is:
F = m.a.µ(|a|/A)
where A is a constant around 10^-10 m/s^2.
F and a are vectors while |a| is the magnitude as
usual.
For a >> A, we recover Newton's second law: F ~ m.a
For a << A, that becomes: F ~ m.(|a|/A).a
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics for
more detail.
Good advice, you should have taken it.
George
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of my comments
which I cannot help you with...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 03:55:36 PM |
|
|
Aetherist wrote:
[...]
....and how well does MOND handle relativistic effects that have
extensive observational support.
Y'know, like gravitational lensing? Which was used again recently on
the bullet cluster, which MOND can't explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aetherist" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 06:01:04 PM |
|
|
On 24 Sep 2006 13:55:36 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Aetherist wrote:
[...]
...and how well does MOND handle relativistic effects that have
extensive observational support.
As its inventor... It seems to me MOND is purely an AD HOC modification
to Newton's ad hoc equation.
Y'know, like gravitational lensing? Which was used again recently on
the bullet cluster, which MOND can't explain.
MOND wasn't 'designed' to address that. But again, as its proponents...
This was a simple demonstration of similarities in mathematical form
and behavior between two DIFFERENT models with two different bases...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 09:35:27 PM |
|
|
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's inventory of
250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies in tow, the researchers'
profile of satellite velocities supported the dark matter theory
and discounted the MOND idea".
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"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".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aetherist" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 06:13:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:35:27 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's inventory of
250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies in tow, the researchers'
profile of satellite velocities supported the dark matter theory
and discounted the MOND idea".
Hey Sam, where's the beef??? That link has nothing to do with
the abstract.
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"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".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 09:36:56 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's inventory of
250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies in tow, the researchers'
profile of satellite velocities supported the dark matter theory
and discounted the MOND idea".
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"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".
Sam, why do people keep pretending MOND is a viable theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 10:26:14 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's inventory of
250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies in tow, the researchers'
profile of satellite velocities supported the dark matter theory
and discounted the MOND idea".
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"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".
Sam, why do people keep pretending MOND is a viable theory?
Perhaps they have a bad taste in their mouth of the progress of
mainstream physics research? Perhaps Stowe sees something that
appeals to him--he seem capable of sorting out research results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 11:07:02 PM |
|
|
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:q%HRg.160497$FQ1.102872@attbi_s71...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon,
and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's
inventory of 250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies
in tow, the researchers' profile of satellite velocities
supported the dark matter theory and discounted the
MOND idea".
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"The sources of gravity in the cluster are not located
where the ordinary matter is located, so this cluster
is a counter-example to MOND. All of this was known
in 2003 but with less precision. Sean Carroll has a
nice post about this at Cosmic Variance".
Sam, why do people keep pretending MOND is a
viable theory?
Perhaps they have a bad taste in their mouth of the
progress of mainstream physics research?
Personally, I feel that Dark Matter and Dark Energy look and act
like fudge factors.
MOND is not complete, and may be entirely too broken to ever fix.
But I don't see it being any more ad hoc than DM/DE.
As to the Bullet Cluster, the stars themselves would not be
"hydrostatically braked" as the gas was, are too far away to be
imaged, and en masse would present a much less noticeable
"object" than the hot gas would. It does not present any sort of
attack on MOND, nor does it validate Dark Matter, in my opinion.
Frankly, I don't understand why people have to "camp" around any
particular model. Other than to bust Stowe's chops... They are
simply models. The Truth will never be known.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 11:15:01 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:q%HRg.160497$FQ1.102872@attbi_s71...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon,
and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's
inventory of 250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies
in tow, the researchers' profile of satellite velocities
supported the dark matter theory and discounted the
MOND idea".
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"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".
Sam, why do people keep pretending MOND is a
viable theory?
Perhaps they have a bad taste in their mouth of the
progress of mainstream physics research?
Personally, I feel that Dark Matter and Dark Energy look and act
like fudge factors.
MOND is not complete, and may be entirely too broken to ever fix.
But I don't see it being any more ad hoc than DM/DE.
As to the Bullet Cluster, the stars themselves would not be
"hydrostatically braked" as the gas was, are too far away to be
imaged, and en masse would present a much less noticeable
"object" than the hot gas would. It does not present any sort of
attack on MOND, nor does it validate Dark Matter, in my opinion.
Frankly, I don't understand why people have to "camp" around any
particular model. Other than to bust Stowe's chops... They are
simply models. The Truth will never be known.
David A. Smith
I have a personal opinion too, David... and that is that progress
will be made converging toward the truth. Progress has happened in
the past, is happening now, and will likely happen in the future.
Why? Because we humans have (collectively) an insatiable curiosity
about how the universe works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 07:25:05 PM |
|
|
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9JIRg.160555$FQ1.103406@attbi_s71...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:q%HRg.160497$FQ1.102872@attbi_s71...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Number 638 #2, May 22, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon,
and Ben Stein
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/638-2.html
The Conventional Theory of Dark Matter
"Scrutinizing a subset of 3000 galaxies (from Sloan's
inventory of 250,000 galaxies) with satellite galaxies
in tow, the researchers' profile of satellite
velocities
supported the dark matter theory and discounted the
MOND idea".
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
"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".
Sam, why do people keep pretending MOND is a
viable theory?
Perhaps they have a bad taste in their mouth of the
progress of mainstream physics research?
Personally, I feel that Dark Matter and Dark Energy look and
act like fudge factors.
MOND is not complete, and may be entirely too broken to ever
fix. But I don't see it being any more ad hoc than DM/DE.
As to the Bullet Cluster, the stars themselves would not be
"hydrostatically braked" as the gas was, are too far away to
be imaged, and en masse would present a much less noticeable
"object" than the hot gas would. It does not present any sort
of attack on MOND, nor does it validate Dark Matter, in my
opinion.
Frankly, I don't understand why people have to "camp" around
any particular model. Other than to bust Stowe's chops...
They are simply models. The Truth will never be known.
I have a personal opinion too, David... and that is that
progress
will be made converging toward the truth. Progress has
happened in
the past, is happening now, and will likely happen in the
future.
Why? Because we humans have (collectively) an insatiable
curiosity
about how the universe works.
Well said.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
24 Sep 2006 05:57:25 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe "Aetherist" <TheAetherist@best.net> w/i
news:jgkdh25q1lpcma72t9lafsc04lfhrpsqn5@4ax.com...
[hanson]
Yo, Paul, que passo?. Long time no talk. I still like
your extremely elegant "Paul Stowe Unit System"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a23747cdf0f7bd86
You should post your work here every so often, because
fundamentally physics does only compare things with each
other and everything else is interpretation and conjecture,
which is why IMO a unit system like yours is of prime importance.
Anyway:
The Aug 2006 issue of DISCOVERY magazine, p.32-39
has 2 excellent, easy to read articles on your and Eric's
issues. Astrophysicist Adam Frank & Laurence Krauss
discuss Milgrom's ~1980 MOND theory with his
F = m (a)^2 / a_o
which differs from Newtons F= m a only when (a) reaches
values below 10E-9 m/s^2. ---- Then in March 25, 2004,
an "improved" version appeared in Phys. Rev.Let.D, by
Jacob Bekenstein where he published his
"Relativistic Gravitation Theory for the MOND Paradigm"
which has been dubbed "TeVeS" (Tensor/Vector/Scalar)
=== Google: 30,200 hits for --["TeVeS" physics ]---
Of course all these theories will not help Eric to get any
faster to the stars, unless we first do solve the problems
of human survival in near space orbits , like osteo problems
and other low-g bio difficulties. Having said that, it is far more
productive to engage into and dream about these fancy far
space sci-fy type endeavors, then to turn religious & beat each
other's brain out, prompting Eric's dispair: "***** this planet":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dcabfff7127cfbc0
Take care, have fun, enjoy life, guys.. and laugh.... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
[Paul]
In (MO)dified (N)ewtonian (D)ynamics it is proposed that the flat
galactic rotation profiles observed is due to a modification to
Newton's force equation such that,
F = ma
is modified to be,
F = kma
Where,
k = µ(x)
and µ and x are arbitrarily determined constants.
Further, x is defined to be the ratio of the actual acceleration (a)
and constant acceleration (a'), i.e.,
x = a/a'
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics for
more detail.
When a >> 1 µ(a/a') = unity (1) and when a/a' << 1 then µ(a/a') = a/a'
This characteristic is a signature of the exponential form,
-x
f(x) = 1 - e
when x << 1 f(x) = x, and as x -> infinity, f(x) -> unity...
In Le Sage's theory the basic model is of the fundamental form,
-x
d¿ = ¿ - ¿e
Where the exponential represents the amount of the impingent flux
that exiting an attenuating body. When x << unity the result is,
d¿ = ¿x
and as x -> infinity we simply have,
d¿ = ¿
Since in Le Sage's model it is the net (delta) in the flux ¿ produces
the acceleration (and force) on any mass m at r we find a perfect
one to one correlation in both mathematical form and function to MOND.
Both theories will predicts the same result under similar mathematical
constraints. It also provides an explanation and basis for MOND's
arbitrarily assumes constants...
Paul Stowe
[Eric]
...and how well does MOND handle relativistic effects that have
extensive observational support.
Y'know, like gravitational lensing? Which was used again recently on
the bullet cluster, which MOND can't explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aetherist" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 06:12:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:57:25 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
Paul Stowe "Aetherist" <TheAetherist@best.net> w/i
news:jgkdh25q1lpcma72t9lafsc04lfhrpsqn5@4ax.com...
[hanson]
Yo, Paul, que passo?.
SOS-DD
Long time no talk. I still like your extremely elegant
"Paul Stowe Unit System"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a23747cdf0f7bd86
So do I... :) It resolves all physical properties to simple
M-L-t & nothing else.
You should post your work here every so often, because
fundamentally physics does only compare things with each
other and everything else is interpretation and conjecture,
which is why IMO a unit system like yours is of prime
importance.
I think/thought so but, you can lead horses to water but
you cannot make'em drink...
Anyway:
The Aug 2006 issue of DISCOVERY magazine, p.32-39
has 2 excellent, easy to read articles on your and Eric's
issues. Astrophysicist Adam Frank & Laurence Krauss
discuss Milgrom's ~1980 MOND theory with his
F = m (a)^2 / a_o
which differs from Newtons F= m a only when (a) reaches
values below 10E-9 m/s^2. ---- Then in March 25, 2004,
an "improved" version appeared in Phys. Rev.Let.D, by
Jacob Bekenstein where he published his
"Relativistic Gravitation Theory for the MOND Paradigm"
which has been dubbed "TeVeS" (Tensor/Vector/Scalar)
=== Google: 30,200 hits for --["TeVeS" physics ]---
Well, my opinion remains that TeVeS simply adds in the
LeSagian medium. I wonder how it compares observationally
to Ilja's GLET...
Of course all these theories will not help Eric to get
any faster to the stars, unless we first do solve the
problems of human survival in near space orbits , like
osteo problems and other low-g bio difficulties.
Answer, eugenic, (bio-engineering for space based environs...)
Having said that, it is far more productive to engage into
and dream about these fancy far space sci-fy type endeavors,
then to turn religious & beat each other's brain out,
I've pretty much quit that...
prompting Eric's dispair: "***** this planet":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dcabfff7127cfbc0
Take care, have fun, enjoy life, guys.. and laugh.... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
I'll try... ;)
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model |
25 Sep 2006 06:20:59 PM |
|
|
"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:cfmgh296n5m9mormq6lj49equeepikt68p@4ax.com...
| I think/thought so but, you can lead horses to water but
| you cannot make'em drink...
You can lead an aetherialist to logic, but you can't make him think.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
