Oh No
Nov4-06, 03:37 PM
Thus spake Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com>
>Oz wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> writes
>>> Oz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Francis' proposal (gr-qc/0604047 backed by gr-qc/0604047, gr-
>>>> qc/0605127) places the shift as a correction due to quantum gravity
>>>> since photons are essentially quantised. The same effect modified by
>>>> being seen "edgeways on" produces a shift that matches the doppler shift
>>>> that mond seeks to explain but with this explanation the galaxies rotate
>>>> in a newtonian manner when the doppler shift is properly interpreted.
>>> So where does this leave Dark Matter if Francis' explanation for the
>>> accuracy of MOND is correct?
>>
>
>Given this, why don't I read about this all across the media as 'Dark
>Matter' is debunked? Especially given the contortions that
>astrophysicists are putting themselves through to try and explain what
>it is, and apparently having to come up with multiple bizarre
>properties? Just Occam's Razor would suggest that Francis' proposal
>should be preferred. So, what's the problem with it?
>
It's not yet refereed. There is a problem getting it refereed, since it
requires a deep understanding of foundations of quantum theory (an
unpopular field) together with a deep understanding of differential
geometry, since it alters the connection. Those who do understand both
those fields at the required level are unlikely to have much knowledge
of observational cosmology. I don't think this creates insurmountable
problems, but I do think that a referee will have to put in quite a lot
more than a couple of days work to give it a proper assessment.
Hopefully this will happen in the course of time and I am awaiting
reports on submitted papers. By comparison with other discoveries, I
think one is talking of timescales of years before one can hope for a
reasonable level of acceptance which would justify media headlines
saying "dark matter debunked".
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
>Oz wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> writes
>>> Oz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Francis' proposal (gr-qc/0604047 backed by gr-qc/0604047, gr-
>>>> qc/0605127) places the shift as a correction due to quantum gravity
>>>> since photons are essentially quantised. The same effect modified by
>>>> being seen "edgeways on" produces a shift that matches the doppler shift
>>>> that mond seeks to explain but with this explanation the galaxies rotate
>>>> in a newtonian manner when the doppler shift is properly interpreted.
>>> So where does this leave Dark Matter if Francis' explanation for the
>>> accuracy of MOND is correct?
>>
>
>Given this, why don't I read about this all across the media as 'Dark
>Matter' is debunked? Especially given the contortions that
>astrophysicists are putting themselves through to try and explain what
>it is, and apparently having to come up with multiple bizarre
>properties? Just Occam's Razor would suggest that Francis' proposal
>should be preferred. So, what's the problem with it?
>
It's not yet refereed. There is a problem getting it refereed, since it
requires a deep understanding of foundations of quantum theory (an
unpopular field) together with a deep understanding of differential
geometry, since it alters the connection. Those who do understand both
those fields at the required level are unlikely to have much knowledge
of observational cosmology. I don't think this creates insurmountable
problems, but I do think that a referee will have to put in quite a lot
more than a couple of days work to give it a proper assessment.
Hopefully this will happen in the course of time and I am awaiting
reports on submitted papers. By comparison with other discoveries, I
think one is talking of timescales of years before one can hope for a
reasonable level of acceptance which would justify media headlines
saying "dark matter debunked".
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email