Comments on: Bullet Not Silver? http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/ Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:26:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Peter http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-12787 Peter Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:45:19 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-12787 MOG like MOND was developed from the Tully Fisher law which says that luminosity is proportional to the flat orbital velocity raised to a power like 3 or 4. The last thing that the highly-trained mathematical theoreticians at the turn of the 19th century, like Maxwell, wanted to believe was that the speed of light was actually constant despite the fact that there were all kinds observational, experimental and theoretical evidence that it was constant. What Einstein did in 1905 was to come up with a way to theoretically account for this observational result. My luminosity-based <a href="http://infraforce.googlepages.com/infraredlevertheory" rel="nofollow">Infralever theory</a> takes the Tully Fisher law at face value. Its development time was much longer than MOND's or MOG's. With the mass-based theories of Newton and Einstein we have 95 % of the universe we cannot find except theoretically. Is the confidence in the present model so great and the results of the light pressure studies so replete that the Tully Fisher law could not mean what is says it means? Even despite the fact that MOG and MOND, which are based on the Tully Fisher law, do a pretty good job of predicting the rotation curves of galaxies? MOG like MOND was developed from the Tully Fisher law which says that luminosity is proportional to the flat orbital velocity raised to a power like 3 or 4.

The last thing that the highly-trained mathematical theoreticians at the turn of the 19th century, like Maxwell, wanted to believe was that the speed of light was actually constant despite the fact that there were all kinds observational, experimental and theoretical evidence that it was constant. What Einstein did in 1905 was to come up with a way to theoretically account for this observational result.

My luminosity-based Infralever theory takes the Tully Fisher law at face value. Its development time was much longer than MOND’s or MOG’s.

With the mass-based theories of Newton and Einstein we have 95 % of the universe we cannot find except theoretically. Is the confidence in the present model so great and the results of the light pressure studies so replete that the Tully Fisher law could not mean what is says it means? Even despite the fact that MOG and MOND, which are based on the Tully Fisher law, do a pretty good job of predicting the rotation curves of galaxies?

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-975 Clifford Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:51:38 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-975 Hi, Yes, it is a very interesting discussion indeed. Thanks for the links, which will be useful to all. -cvj Hi,

Yes, it is a very interesting discussion indeed. Thanks for the links, which will be useful to all.

-cvj

]]> By: Dissonant http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-974 Dissonant Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:41:57 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-974 You may want to check out the discussions at Cosmocoffe: http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=650 http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=656 Regarding structure formation without dark matter, here is a recent paper by Dodelson and Liguori about it: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608602 You may want to check out the discussions at Cosmocoffe:

http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=650
http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=656

Regarding structure formation without dark matter, here is a recent paper by Dodelson and Liguori about it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608602

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-929 Clifford Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:21:25 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-929 Oh, I see, so it s a hybrid of MOND and dark matter, where the dark matter is almost garden variety. Does anyone ever test those models (and other MOND varieties) against galaxy formation simulations vs survey data? That is an area where full-component cold dark matter models are supposed to be favoured. Cheers, -cvj Oh, I see, so it s a hybrid of MOND and dark matter, where the dark matter is almost garden variety. Does anyone ever test those models (and other MOND varieties) against galaxy formation simulations vs survey data? That is an area where full-component cold dark matter models are supposed to be favoured.

Cheers,

-cvj

]]> By: Doug http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-928 Doug Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:10:45 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-928 Angus and Zhao posted a new paper (astro-ph/0609125) on the 7th, which attempts to model the newer bullet cluster lensing contours using the TeVeS version of MOND. They are able to get a very good looking fit, but have to use a dark matter component which is 2.4 times the baryonic mass of the system. Their claim is that neutrinos with a 2 ev mass could provide this dark matter component, so you wouldn't need "exotic" dark matter. Angus and Zhao posted a new paper (astro-ph/0609125) on the 7th, which attempts to model the newer bullet cluster lensing contours using the TeVeS version of MOND. They are able to get a very good looking fit, but have to use a dark matter component which is 2.4 times the baryonic mass of the system. Their claim is that neutrinos with a 2 ev mass could provide this dark matter component, so you wouldn’t need “exotic” dark matter.

]]> By: Louise http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-923 Louise Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:41:14 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/07/bullet-not-silver/#comment-923 Moffat's fits many galaxy's velocity curves to his theory, which is impressive. Corroborating evidence appears to favour "dark matter". Moffat’s fits many galaxy’s velocity curves to his theory, which is impressive. Corroborating evidence appears to favour “dark matter”.

]]>