MOND is an empirically motivated modification of Newtonian gravity or inertia theorized by Milgrom as an alternative to dark matter. The basic idea is that at accelerations below ao ~~ 10?8 cm/s2 ~~ cHo/6 the effective gravitational attraction approaches the sqrt(gnao) where gn is the usual Newtonian acceleration.
Interestingly enough our minds seem to working in harmony Merl. Just today I was about to bring up this exact point.
That's pretty exciting (as long as you weren't being sarcastic).
I've been working on an alternative to DM for the past three years. I have modeled my theory after TeVeS in a sense, as MOND seems to describe the mechanics quite well. I also introduce some newer concepts that can only be described with M-theory. I guess we'll have a much better idea once the LHC @ CERN comes online as to who has the better idea. Dark Matter relies on supersymmetry - a theory that flopped on its own, but one that should be evidenced at the LHC. If it runs its cycle and finds no SS particles, SS is out and DM is in serious trouble. I can hardly wait; I think DM is silly (as offered) since it relies on hidden particles, hidden forces and new physics - none of which can be demonstrated. Crimeny, I would have thought that we (as scientists) would have proposed a geometric possibility prior to a completely theoretical one. Silly me. At any rate, that's what my theory is: a geometric description for the action of galaxies, the lensing of light, and the {apparent} dislocated time distribution across the cosmic fabric.
Merl,
My apologies if you misunderstood my post. I was NOT being sarcastic. I have long ago stopped being sarcastic
with you. I consider you to be one of America's national treasures, one of our secret weapons.
I was simply jesting with you because usually I have no idea what you are talking about.
I doubt there are
more than a small handful of people on these boards that do know what you are talking about and even when they do
know, there are even less who can keep up.
I am usually considered a fairly intelligent person, even flirting with Mensa standards, but have learned over the years
that there are some people who are light years ahead of the herd. I would imagine that you are in that savant catagory from
what I have seen. Comparatively, when it comes to physics, I am in the autistic camp.
I know that when we first encounterd each other I termed you a clown rather
than a magician. I am almost ready to give you back the magician title.
I came across an interesting post by another scientist which rang very true.
"in the classrooms of today, anything which cannot be proven by the scientific method or by traditionaly accepted academic sources is prohibited, and personal opinions of religious faith presented as academic fact, could easily cost me my prospective profession, and may actually result in incarceration. Teachers are paid to teach; not proselytize."
