Mond theory and dark matter

[Nokton]

Dear friend,
The Quote is from this old man, use it, wisely,
you are free to use it as you wish Dragon.
Ok lets keep to the thread, is the Nuker team wrong?
It has never found a galaxy without a SMBH, what is more, they
have found a relationship between the mass of the SMBH and the
mass of it's surrounding galaxy. The SMBHs In some galaxies may be
enjoying a quiet phase, the relationship is the same.
Hope you understand Dragon......

[stuart]

Originally Posted by Nokton

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.

Google did not turn up too much, but I did find the Nuker Team's home page. On it, they have a review article on what they're doing. I've read the article, and no where in it do they imply that a black hole came first and a galaxy formed later. All they seem interested in doing is finding supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, and correlating the derived mass with the derived mass of the galaxy.

This implies a co-evolution since they find that there is a "standard" relationship between black hole mass and galaxy bulge (not disk) mass, but again, this in no way necessitates a black hole first (which again is impossible, you have to have stars first unless you go with Hawking's idea that black holes were formed along with the Big Bang) and then forming the galaxy. They point to some authors that claim what you do, but say that it is not known, is the subject of debate, and cannot presently be proven. Perhpas you're looking at, "[black holes] may be a necessary ingredient in our understanding of galaxy formation." But, "formation" does not mean initial accretion, rather by "formation" here they mean how the galaxy evolved to get to its present state. This is another example of where language used by astronomers doesn't always mean the same thing as it does to non-astronomers, which is also part of the reason behind that poll question that you dislike.

Can you specifically point to a paper or site that supports what you were saying? The source that I refer to here is at http://chandra.as.utexas.edu/~kormen...perspective.ps .

[Nokton]

Hi Stuart,
Thanx for your post. At this point, allow me to suggest that we
agree to disagree? I am not known for my tardiness in admitting I am wrong, but for now, let us explore.
Have a docu on the hard drive of my DVD recorder, with various members of the Nuker team explaining how SMBHs were crucial to galaxy
formation. Even more, how the mass of a galaxies black hole related to
the mass of the galaxy around it, within 0.5%.
Will persue this Stuart, have all the names of the Nuker team, get back to you when I have more info.
Regards.
Nokton

I once calculated that, if I understand the MOND theory correctly, Sedna would be far enough out to fall under the non-Newtonian effects. Under Newtonian physics, Sedna's observed position and velocity is consistent with being near the perihelion of a very elliptical orbit. But under MOND, it would be consistent with a much less elliptical orbit.

One could calculate its orbital trajectory based on current observations assuming each of the 3 theories (Newtonian, STVG, and MOND) to be correct, and then in a few years (decades?) observe Sedna again and see which path it follows.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by umop ap!sdn

I once calculated that, if I understand the MOND theory correctly, Sedna would be far enough out to fall under the non-Newtonian effects. Under Newtonian physics, Sedna's observed position and velocity is consistent with being near the perihelion of a very elliptical orbit. But under MOND, it would be consistent with a much less elliptical orbit.

One could calculate its orbital trajectory based on current observations assuming each of the 3 theories (Newtonian, STVG, and MOND) to be correct, and then in a few years (decades?) observe Sedna again and see which path it follows.

Umop,
The basis of Mond theory is one of a miscalculation by Albert
and Newton, not a great one, but enough to explain why we have to
draw on an unseen force in the present scenario, to explain what we do
not understand. Mond is a theory, and as such, open to criticism.
Only by doubting and questioning can science broaden it's horizon.
Nokton

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by umop ap!sdn

I once calculated that, if I understand the MOND theory correctly, Sedna would be far enough out to fall under the non-Newtonian effects. Under Newtonian physics, Sedna's observed position and velocity is consistent with being near the perihelion of a very elliptical orbit. But under MOND, it would be consistent with a much less elliptical orbit.

One could calculate its orbital trajectory based on current observations assuming each of the 3 theories (Newtonian, STVG, and MOND) to be correct, and then in a few years (decades?) observe Sedna again and see which path it follows.

Very interesting, thanks.