Re: Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- From: Surfer <no@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:59:06 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:52:11 +0000 (UTC), charleskmhui@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) beaten to death yet? This theory
is tried to explained dark matter without resolving to any new theory
or new physics. It basically tries to apply two different standard at
different scale of physics. If people cannot propose any consistent
deep thought and elegant mathematical equations, please drop their
papers. Don't create papers for sake of creating papers!!! String
theorists has done a much better mathematical job than this kind of
physics, at least they have created a branch of new math.
Lately, I read an article "Dark Energy without Dark Energy". I am not
convinced by the author approach. Again, applying different definition
of word at different stages and different assumptions at different
phenonmena. I really doubt what kind of scientific standard at the
first place?
Does anyone know any model that can be consistently derived from early
stage of Universe to the current phenomenal Universe, without
switching principle, without switching assumptions at different stages
of the evolution of the Universe, and without switching interpretation
of conventional operational terms. It can derive consistently from
quantum gravity to classical gravity descriptions.
A Quantum Cosmology: No Dark Matter, Dark Energy nor Accelerating
Universe
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/QC.pdf
.
- References:
- Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- From: charleskmhui
- Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- Prev by Date: The quantum of convective heat?
- Next by Date: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
- Previous by thread: Re: Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- Next by thread: Re: M and the higgs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
