Difference between revisions 5480343 and 15927218 on enwiki

The Modified Newtonian Dynamics 11:18 am [Added copyright notices] . . . . . 80.11.172.xxx

And nobody's reacting ? --[[User:Taw]]



Well, we should expect a reaction tomorow, but I don't think anything is actually wrong with the text of the copyright notice.  Everything on the wikipedia is copyrighted, we just license it on the terms of the GNU FDL, as long as the author is not specifically revoking those rights, it is perfectly acceptable that he mentions on the page that the text is copyrighted.  But that's just my opinion.  [[User:MRC]]



Adding a copyright notice seems right to me. How could I take such a picture of M51 myself?

BTW, any reason all quotes are question marks now? [[User:dlebansais]]



----

Yes, because you copied the text from a Microsoft Windows document with "curly quotes", which are not valid ISO-8859-1 characters.  Please see [[Wiki special characters]] for how to do these correctly.  --LDC



Hopefully, everything is fixed now. [[User:dlebansais]]



-----

I added the reason why most astrophysicists are unlikely to take MOND as the first explanation for odd galaxy rotation curves.  

(contracted; show full)



Obviously the theory MUST conform to the net ''f=ma'' result on Earth, lest it be laughed off. But this conformity seems VERY contrived at the moment, and that really weakens the rest of the argument. I'm not criticising the theory, but as a person who knows nothing of this particular subject, yet is able to follow the maths, I have a problem with this as a Wikipedia article. - [[
User:MMGB]]



----



Added an introduction which links to the Los Alamos preprint archive for papers on mond



----



To respond to the criticism above, just let me tell you first that I'm no expert either, and that any technical question should be directed to M. Milgrom himself.



Now, "In the every day world, <i>a</i> is greater than <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i> for all physical effects" is something I have not verified myself, but I cannot imagine any Earth-bound system, even considered isolated, in which a component undergoes an acceleration smaller than <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i>. It is true in atoms and molecules, for instance.



This being said, and assumed true, means that in any system you study, the typical acceleration will be greater than <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i>. As a consequence, the value of <i>&micro;</i> is always 1 for these systems, and nothing is "cancelled out". <i>F=ma*1</i>, that's all.



If you can design an experiment in which <i>a</i> is less than <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i>, where you can measure it and the corresponding inertia, please tell M. Milgrom immediately. But remember that you experiment will be done inside the gravitational field of the Sun. It will never be an isolated system in this respect.



[[User:dlebansais]]



----There was no technical question - I'm not inquiring about the theory - I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the '''article''': <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i> is not defined. So based on ''the information presented here'' I can easily design an experiment where <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i> is greater than ''a'' - simply because at the moment I can set <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i> to any damn value I choose. This will be the case until a better explanation of the nature and definition of <i>a<sub><font size="-1">0</font></sub></i> is presented.



Now if this theory was published in a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way such essential aspects were omitted. I am complaining that the information presented '''here''' fails to make any sense, because 2 variables (which are critical to the end result) have not been defined. I am not commenting in any way on the theory itself.