- #1
- 24,775
- 792
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606039
for something to gain visibility all it needs is people interested in proving or disproving it. It doesn't need people to BELIEVE it.
Some PF members seem not to have heard of RELATIVISTIC MOND. Or else they may be positive that MOND does not do lensing.
I have had people tell me that MOND is not relativistic, and also that it does not imitate the gravitational lens effects of dark matter. Maybe it is a confusion of terminology.
Maybe relativistic MOND should be called "MOG" for "modified gravity"
instead of the old term which is associated with Moti Milgrom's 1981 crude unrelativistic initial version.
Anyway, I think we should be watchful of the process of relativistic MOND, like Bekenstein's TeVeS "mog" and like John Moffat's "mog" gaining credibility and interest.
For example Glenn Starkman has coauthored papers with Lawrence Krauss and with Neil Cornish, and also with Spergel. Now here he is tinkering with TeVeS.
I have to go out, be back later. Not sure what this means to me but looks like "mog" is getting less marginal. Moffat just had a paper where it takes care of BOTH galaxy rotation curves and Pioneer anomally and makes testable predictions for probe signals within the solar system (so not too expensive to test)
from a QG perspective, the thought would be that if mog is right as an effective theory it may have a reasonable or nice explanation at quantum level. only the effective theory is then awkward, maybe.
have to go so edit later
for something to gain visibility all it needs is people interested in proving or disproving it. It doesn't need people to BELIEVE it.
Some PF members seem not to have heard of RELATIVISTIC MOND. Or else they may be positive that MOND does not do lensing.
I have had people tell me that MOND is not relativistic, and also that it does not imitate the gravitational lens effects of dark matter. Maybe it is a confusion of terminology.
Maybe relativistic MOND should be called "MOG" for "modified gravity"
instead of the old term which is associated with Moti Milgrom's 1981 crude unrelativistic initial version.
Anyway, I think we should be watchful of the process of relativistic MOND, like Bekenstein's TeVeS "mog" and like John Moffat's "mog" gaining credibility and interest.
For example Glenn Starkman has coauthored papers with Lawrence Krauss and with Neil Cornish, and also with Spergel. Now here he is tinkering with TeVeS.
I have to go out, be back later. Not sure what this means to me but looks like "mog" is getting less marginal. Moffat just had a paper where it takes care of BOTH galaxy rotation curves and Pioneer anomally and makes testable predictions for probe signals within the solar system (so not too expensive to test)
from a QG perspective, the thought would be that if mog is right as an effective theory it may have a reasonable or nice explanation at quantum level. only the effective theory is then awkward, maybe.
have to go so edit later