Mond theory and dark matter

[sunofsky]

there is nothing wrong with your concept of a Dark Star.

sunil

The main reason why MOND fails to prove anything to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Especially when you take into account that MOND doesn't even try to explain why it should be like it states, in fact, it doesn't explain anything and is only some kind of workaround to match some things in the Universe without any analysis of them, I would even say, a cheap trying to make physics work in a crytical situation when a lot simplier solutions may be provided, e.g. the same dark matter. I stick with dark matter, which doesn't react with electromagnetic waves and is therefore undetectable, because that seems reasonable, that doesn't overturn science (if Newton was wrong, maybe everything else is wrong as well? maybe we need to scrap all of them formulae and rewrite them so they start to fit even in weirdest situations without minding why they should be like that in the first place (like MOND does) from head to feet and is verifiable in a long run, which is not the case with MOND.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Carnifex

The main reason why MOND fails to prove anything to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Especially when you take into account that MOND doesn't even try to explain why it should be like it states, in fact, it doesn't explain anything and is only some kind of workaround to match some things in the Universe without any analysis of them, I would even say, a cheap trying to make physics work in a crytical situation when a lot simplier solutions may be provided, e.g. the same dark matter. I stick with dark matter, which doesn't react with electromagnetic waves and is therefore undetectable, because that seems reasonable, that doesn't overturn science (if Newton was wrong, maybe everything else is wrong as well? maybe we need to scrap all of them formulae and rewrite them so they start to fit even in weirdest situations without minding why they should be like that in the first place (like MOND does) from head to feet and is verifiable in a long run, which is not the case with MOND.

.


Carniflex, thanx for your reply.
My point was, and is, after decades of searching, no evidence of dark matter has been found. Dark matter is a theory, much as MOND is, so we
must approach the problem with new ideas, and a different way of thinking.
Hope this is of interest to you. George Chapline, a physicist, and Nobel
laureate Robert Laughlin, propose that black holes could in fact be dead
stars that form as a result of an obscure quantum phenomenon. And could explain both dark matter and dark energy.
Bearing in mind the status in the scientific community of the two mentioned above, feel their ideas worthy of interest and study.
Carniflex, tell me your opinion on the spaghetti effect when falling into
a 'black hole'.
Nokton.

[sunofsky]

the whole universe was filled with black hole itself and then gradually stars and planets took birth? nokton, I am just asking this one. Or there was such a energy which was similar to the black hole! before getting the shape to the stars and the planets all over in the space. or that 2 giant parts (which were black holes) burst out in the big bang and then this scinario come out?

sunil

[Nokton]

Sunil, the Black Hole came first, dear friend, in many parts of the universe.
Driven by the gas clouds that under gravity condensed and collapsed to
make the 'black hole', which then created the galaxy that surrounded it.
That is how all galaxies were formed.
Regards to you family,
Nokton.

[stuart]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Sunil, the Black Hole came first, dear friend, in many parts of the universe.
Driven by the gas clouds that under gravity condensed and collapsed to
make the 'black hole', which then created the galaxy that surrounded it.
That is how all galaxies were formed.

Where are you getting this from? What is your source and line of reasoning?

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by stuart

Where are you getting this from? What is your source and line of reasoning?

Stuart,
Without contention. or in any way implying an imposition.
I read and study a lot Stuart. You will find, if you check it out, my
information is correct. First saw it on a cable channel, Science, about a
year ago. Many prominent scientists involved. It also explained why the stars on the outer rim are travelling at the same speed as those close
to the central core. This is now accepted Stuart, by many learned minds.
Stuart, I feel an anger within you, which I feel inappropriate to reasoned
discourse, and communication. Only wish I knew why....
You take care now Stuart.
Nokton

[stuart]

I have checked it out, and I find your information incorrect. It is not necessary for a black hole to act as a seed for a galaxy. Rather, the galaxy almost has to come first, and then in its densest parts a black hole will form. And larger black holes can then form through mergers, or continued accretion.

This does not preclude the existence of supermassive black holes created by the Big Bang, as proposed by Hawking, but it makes them unnecessary for any type of galaxy formation.

The phrase of yours that I object to is, "That is how all galaxies were formed." That is not how all galaxies were formed, otherwise the observed existence today of galaxies without a black hole would not be possible. The scenario that you describe could happen, but only with a primordial black hole, if they exist(ed). Otherwise, the collapsing gas MUST go through a stellar phase before collapse into a black hole, that's simply physics and stellar evolution that's been known for over 40 years.

A source is a paper by W.J. Duschl and P.A. Strittmatter from 2004 entitled "The Formation and Feeding of Massive Black Holes in the Early Universe."

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Sunil, the Black Hole came first, dear friend, in many parts of the universe.
Driven by the gas clouds that under gravity condensed and collapsed to
make the 'black hole', which then created the galaxy that surrounded it.
That is how all galaxies were formed.
Regards to you family,
Nokton.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I believe the growing view now is the SMBH and the galaxy "co-evolve", in the sense that each is necessary for the full development of the other.

Primordial-early staged Universe:

Matter clumps together, their masses grow forcing more gravity to bring in more and more matter scattered throughout the cosmos, gasses build burning balls of fire throughout this large mass area, helping to mold galaxies as we know it, but the whole time this is going on the original mass that started the evolution of the galaxy is so dense it collapses into a black hole that is ever feeding on the galaxy it's self, twisting this primordial mass and twisting space. Billions later you have a well formed galaxy.

Everyone wants an answer one way or the other when we can have a common ground between two options.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by stuart

I have checked it out, and I find your information incorrect. It is not necessary for a black hole to act as a seed for a galaxy. Rather, the galaxy almost has to come first, and then in its densest parts a black hole will form. And larger black holes can then form through mergers, or continued accretion.

This does not preclude the existence of supermassive black holes created by the Big Bang, as proposed by Hawking, but it makes them unnecessary for any type of galaxy formation.

The phrase of yours that I object to is, "That is how all galaxies were formed." That is not how all galaxies were formed, otherwise the observed existence today of galaxies without a black hole would not be possible. The scenario that you describe could happen, but only with a primordial black hole, if they exist(ed). Otherwise, the collapsing gas MUST go through a stellar phase before collapse into a black hole, that's simply physics and stellar evolution that's been known for over 40 years.

A source is a paper by W.J. Duschl and P.A. Strittmatter from 2004 entitled "The Formation and Feeding of Massive Black Holes in the Early Universe."

'
Dear Stuart, thankyou for your reply, mean that. I enjoy dialogue with
you and exchanging ideas. I have thought long and hard on how to respond to your post without seeming to be objectionable.
All I ask of you is this, go into Google Stuart, type in, The Nuker team,
then you will understand my source, why I responded to sunil as
I did, and why I respect the findings of the Nuker team.
Nokton.