Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stuart My opinion, if you really want it, is that MOND seems to be a cop-out. It seems to be something without any real physics behind it, and it was just invented empirically. Whereas MOND has been developed to explain galaxy rotation curves, dark matter explains more, and there is evidence for it in the data for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that should have absolutely nothing to do with MOND (CMB information can be found on NASA's WMAP website http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ). I think that even though dark matter has yet to be really "discovered," it is the more likely of the two explanations to prevail in the long-haul, but really only future observations will tell.
And you say that "so many teachers are so locked in knowledge they learned in the past." I have to disagree with you on this, especially if you're trying to generalize it to me and to other astronomers. Of all the hundreds of astronomers I have met, and the hundreds more that I've read about, I only know of one who refuses to believe lines of evidence that contradict his own ideas. By their very nature, scientists are trained to NOT accept the status quo and to search out what's really going on. That's one of the main reasons why I chose this field -- because it's constantly changing. |
You misinterpreted the point I was making Stuart, but prove it by your
rebuttal. Scientists are trained not to accept the status quo....
Then why not accept ideas different to your teaching????
Tell me your thinking on Black Hole theory. Is it a black hole in the
conventional sense? You envisage a Black hole in 3 dimensions???
or two?
Stuart, I detect hostility in your post, that sorrows me.
All I wanted, contact with you in reason and logic.
Nokton.