MOND, that is to say MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, is a fail.
Sorry about that, but that's what it is. I've known about that for about a year, so why haven't Science Journalists caught up with it?
What irks me is that the difference between science journalists and myself is this:
They have a job, I don't.
Not fair? I think so. Especially when you consider most of them know NOTHING about Science, which is like, their JOB, you know?
Anyway, I had the distinct pleasure last night of reading about the subject of this post, and then some, by the excellent PROFESSIONAL PHYSICIST Ethan Siegel, about the very subject of this post. And Ethan's post, which I'm about to link, is pretty much one of the BEST Scientific posts you will ever read. Not sure how somebody could write a better one, really.
Click here at Ethan's excellent weblog "Starts With A Bang!" to see what I'm talking about.
I really don't have anything to add. Ethan says it all.
You RULE Ethan! Thanks very much to your parents for getting busy one night (maybe an afternoon or morning, who knows?) and making the Ethan that is you.
Consider me a fan, brah, from here on out.
 |
| Your normal, everyday, Astrophysicist. What's not to love? |
MOG is really just a special case of MOND
ReplyDeleteand MOND is just a special case of MOG.
Both really say the same thing. That our intuition of gravity is incorrect and needs to be modified for the weak field limit. Once you have MOND you can apply relativity just as you did for regular dynamics to get MOG.