Mond theory and dark matter

Definition: dark matter is any kind of matter which does not emit any visible radiation and is therefore not (or very difficultly) detectable.

What fits this definition? Neutrinoes. They have a very low mass, but there are a lot of them in the universe, because they are almost never assimilated - they simple do not participate in any kind of particle reactions. Take very small neutrino mass, multiply it by a huge quantity that was produced during the existance of Universe - voila, quite a bit of dark matter. No need to prove anything - neutrinoes make the dark matter.

The only question is, are neutrinoes as the dark matter enough to explain the effects we see in the Universe? Well that's the difficult part...

[Dragon Star]

How would you fit your Neutrino theory inside the observed results of galaxies? I can assure you that Neutrino's do not hold a galaxy togther....unless there is a type of Neutrino that has quite a bit of Mass and for the most part remains stationary. I agree that Neutrino's make up more mass then we know about, but not all of it I shouldn't think...

Yes, that's why I'm not so sure about that theory (which is not mine, by the way). It's quite probable that, even though neutrinoes make up for some undetectable mass, it is not enough.

However, I have one more candidate for dark matter - black holes. There is no way you can detect a black hole if it is not surrounded by other matter. Even light bending wouldn't do as it's effect would be negligible... Of course, that fits only for dark matter outside of galaxies, so it still doesn't cover everything...

And yes, if you didn't notice already, I support "dark matter" theory because I'm quite sure there are a lot of matter which is simply invisible because of various reasons and therefore qualifies as the dark matter.

[Nokton]

Dragon,
Just exploring concepts and ideas is all. Dark matter still is
conjecture. All I am proposing is that Mond is an alternative path,
to be evaluated and tried by reason and logic.
Is it not possible Newton made mistakes? Albert did, and admitted them.
Just seeking the truth Dragon.
Nokton.

[Nokton]

Dragon, yes one has to have something to upset the cradle.
a new way of thinking, concepts that upset current dogma.
But concepts and evaluation are nothing without understanding.
Nokton, hope you understand. There is time within time.

[stuart]

Originally Posted by Carnifex

Yes, that's why I'm not so sure about that theory (which is not mine, by the way). It's quite probable that, even though neutrinoes make up for some undetectable mass, it is not enough.

Right, it's not. We have a definate upper mass limit for the known types of neutrinos, and somehow (not sure how on this one) we have an estimate of how many neutrinos there are in the Universe, and they come no wher enear to accounting for all of the not-observed missing mass.

A line of evidence that Dragon Star missed was the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum peaks which are in-line with current estimates of dark matter and are not explained by MOND (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html).

[sunofsky]

Modified Newtonian dynamics, MOND, statistical methods of motion of galaxies. as you are saying about black star possibility, do you think that the existed black power in the sky already turned into the black star, or these black stars already exists with the visible star's creation.

I found the following links quite informatory.
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~dbuote/S..._matter+.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifie...onian_dynamics

Sunil

[Nokton]

We already know there are many things wrong with the current
model, so why support it? why not break free? Think it through.
In doing so you will understand much more of yourself, and science.
Nokton.

[sunofsky]

thanks nokton for the reply, I am thinking it throughly. but what you are telling to think about the black star idea that's really awesome. do you think that the different model than the original one can wipe of wrong things in that model, your new model, how it will work out about black star. Please state.

sunil

[Nokton]

[quote=sunofsky]thanks nokton for the reply, I am thinking it throughly. but what you are telling to think about the black star idea that's really awesome. do you think that the different model than the original one can wipe of wrong things in that model, your new model, how it will work out about black star. Please state.
Sunil, my friend, just read a lot, study a lot, evaluate, then conclude.
The 'Black Hole' is a theory of what we currently think, science is never
sure about the present, it is an on going learning process.
I propose, what is wrong with the concept of a Dark Star?
It fits in with Alberts equations, it grows in size as matter is absorbed,
so, as some claim, the energy does not leak into a different spacetime.
Am more concerned with understanding the time frame at the stars so
called event horizon.
Hope you and your family well and happy Sunil.
Nokton.