Milgrom takes on Newton

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 01 Aug 2006 16:49:34
From: MThomas
Subject: Milgrom takes on Newton

Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law F=Ma
when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These stars
do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom is the
only one that has offered a description that does explain these velocities
in the form F=ma**/a(0);
a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed at
this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.

This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of dark
matter and dark energy.

Date: 01 Aug 2006 21:47:57
From: Jim Black
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

MThomas wrote:
> "Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154491008.099920.324700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> MThomas wrote:
> >> > Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law F=Ma
> >> > when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These stars
> >> > do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom is the
> >> > only one that has offered a description that does explain these velocities
> >> > in the form F=ma**/a(0);
> >> > a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed at
> >> > this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.
> >> >
> >> > This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
> >> > meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of dark
> >> > matter and dark energy.
> >>
> >> Bullshit Thomas
> >
> > Obviously. Milgrom's suggested modification for a << a_0 was
> > F=ma^2/a_0, or F=ma(

Date: 01 Aug 2006 22:42:55
From: Shawn Curry
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

Date: 01 Aug 2006 20:56:48
From: Jim Black
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

Sam Wormley wrote:
> MThomas wrote:
> > Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law F=Ma
> > when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These stars
> > do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom is the
> > only one that has offered a description that does explain these velocities
> > in the form F=ma**/a(0);
> > a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed at
> > this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.
> >
> > This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
> > meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of dark
> > matter and dark energy.
>
> Bullshit Thomas

Obviously. Milgrom's suggested modification for a << a_0 was
F=ma^2/a_0, or F=ma(

Date: 02 Aug 2006 04:18:12
From: MThomas
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1154491008.099920.324700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> MThomas wrote:
>> > Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law
>> > F=Ma
>> > when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These
>> > stars
>> > do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom
>> > is the
>> > only one that has offered a description that does explain these
>> > velocities
>> > in the form F=ma**/a(0);
>> > a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed
>> > at
>> > this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.
>> >
>> > This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
>> > meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of
>> > dark
>> > matter and dark energy.
>>
>> Bullshit Thomas
>
> Obviously. Milgrom's suggested modification for a << a_0 was
> F=ma^2/a_0, or F=ma(

Date: 01 Aug 2006 19:37:04
From: malibu
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

Sam Wormley wrote:
> MThomas wrote:
> > Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law F=Ma
> > when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These stars
> > do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom is the
> > only one that has offered a description that does explain these velocities
> > in the form F=ma**/a(0);
> > a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed at
> > this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.
> >
> > This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
> > meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of dark
> > matter and dark energy.
>
> Bullshit Thomas

OK Sam
*You* explain why outer stars go too fast.

Do you, Sam Wormley, solemnly take Dark Matter,
distributed in exactly the right places, to account
for velocities of stars in outer parts of galaxies?

Is the shape of said Dark Matter, hereafter known
as DM, somewhat similar to road apples? Or
more like cow patties?

John

Date: 02 Aug 2006 03:42:13
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

On 1 Aug 2006 19:37:04 -0700, "malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca > wrote:

>Do you, Sam Wormley, solemnly take Dark Matter,
>distributed in exactly the right places, to account
>for velocities of stars in outer parts of galaxies?

Why shouldn't he (or anyone else who understands and respects how
science works)? Dark matter is currently the best explanation, and
positing it results in all sorts of testable things. Some of those tests
already support the theory, and more are in development.

On the whole, dark matter seems a better theory than tweaking Newton's
laws.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 02 Aug 2006 02:58:54
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

malibu wrote:

> OK Sam
> *You* explain why outer stars go too fast.
>
> Do you, Sam Wormley, solemnly take Dark Matter,
> distributed in exactly the right places, to account
> for velocities of stars in outer parts of galaxies?
>
> Is the shape of said Dark Matter, hereafter known
> as DM, somewhat similar to road apples? Or
> more like cow patties?
>
> John
>

John, the observational data suggest that matter (not
emitting or absorbing photons at a level we can detect)
is present from its gravitational influence.

There is a lot of work being done by the astrophysics
and astrometrics communities to gain understanding of
the distribution and properties of this "dark matter".

Axion experiment makes its debut (Nov 24)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/11/13

An experiment built from components recycled from other experiments has
put new limits on the properties of particles that might be the "dark
matter" that makes up about 25% of the Universe. The CERN Axion Solar
Telescope (CAST) was built to search for exotic particles called axions
that might be produced inside the Sun.

Axion Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

Scientists Map Dark Matter, Prove Einstein Right
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html

Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Date: 01 Aug 2006 16:58:05
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

Date: 02 Aug 2006 04:13:18
From: MThomas
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:1154476685.325402.25570@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MThomas wrote:
>> Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law
>> F=Ma
>> when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These
>> stars
>> do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom is
>> the
>> only one that has offered a description that does explain these
>> velocities
>> in the form F=ma**/a(0);
>> a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed at
>> this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.
>>
>> This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
>> meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of
>> dark
>> matter and dark energy.
>
> Bullshit Thomas

Go read about it in this issue of Discover Mag instead of hiding your head
in the sand.

Date: 02 Aug 2006 04:30:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Milgrom takes on Newton

MThomas wrote:
> Mordehai Milgrom has put forward a modification of Newton's second law F=Ma
> when describing the velocities of the outer stars in galaxies. These stars
> do not follow Newtons law as planets do in the solar system. Milgrom is the
> only one that has offered a description that does explain these velocities
> in the form F=ma**/a(0);
> a(0)= a constant. Interestingly, accelerating from zero to light speed at
> this rate happens in the lifetime of the universe.
>
> This law holds only when accelerations fall below one 10 billionth of a
> meter per sec**. This all raises questions now about the validity of dark
> matter and dark energy.

You live in an equational world without geometry and even if Newton
did mangle several major astronomical principles at least his views can
be corrected by the same geometric reasoning by which he approached
astronomy.

So the first surprise is from an honest physicist -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That
was done by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after
him. Of course, the Principia are not written in the language of
algebra, but
of geometry.." Petr Beckmann

Mr Beckmann,being a physicist,would have no knowledge of what Newton
did to get what appears to be a correct answer that begins and ends in
geometry.Motion along an orbital circumference from a mean value looks
equivalent to a mean value based on mean Sun/Earth distances and
therein the whole Newtonian scheme begins to unravel.

It is a complicated and intricate thing that none of you are capable of
dealing with but it is well worth to keep in mind the words of Kepler
when coming across conceptual mutations such as the destructive and
counter-productive Newtonian mutation -

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that

diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . " KEPLER

How long I have to remain in isolation in this matter I do not
know,that I have to present these important matters among those who
have no feel for astronomy beyond optics can be annoying,the aim being
to recover productive astronomical working principles rather than
attacking 17th century ideologies based on celestial sphere geometry.