Re: non-GR theories of gravity

From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:50:46 +0000 (UTC)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:cste2o$kom$2@online.de...
> In article <uVxHd.957$rc4.369@fe07.usenetserver.com>, "greywolf42"
> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > One must be careful to separate the two different reasons for the
> > postulation of "dark matter". The first is the discrepancy between the
> > observed mass distribution of stars and the motion of (the gas in)
> > spiral galaxies. The second is the needs of big bang cosmology to
> > "cook" the isotopic ratios properly (the observed mass is not
> > sufficient).
> >
> > Even if the first reason is explained by a MOND, the second will remain.
>
> Are you saying that nucleosynthesis demands non-baryonic dark matter?

No.

> > An even simpler one is the observation that gas does not move by gravity
> > alone. And that the measurements of galactic rotation curves are all
> > based on gas motions, or O and B stars recently condensed from same.
>
> As originally noticed by Zwicky a very long time ago, there is also a
> "missing mass" problem in clusters of galaxies.

That would be a different problem. Because there is no "missing mass"
problem within elliptical galaxies.

> What is observed here
> is the redshift of the entire spectrum of the entire galaxy, which
> doesn't necessarily contain a lot of gas or young stars.

You don't need "a lot" of gas or "a lot" of young stars.

> > What evidence can you cite that Bekenstein is not a 'crackpot'?
>
> I've read some of his papers. He also gets a low score on John Baez's
> crackpot index. :-)

I meant, did you have any specific reasons. I already knew that you didn't
think he was a crackpot. What factors did you consider? 

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}