MOG-Modified Gravity

[KChrisC]

Just finished reading John Moffat's book on his Modified Gravity theory.

It says that there are three fields associated with gravity: 1. Newton/Einstein gravity here in the solar system-what we are familiar with-looses strength at square of distance; 2. A field that grows in strength with distance and exerts itself at galaxian and larger distances/scales-also withers away at even vaster distances; 3. A third field that can be descibed as anti-gravity which exibits itself when he other two wither away. Accounts for universe expansion acceleration.

Seems that this explaines a lot without the need for the quirky Dark Matter. I have always thought Dark Matter to be contrived, a lot like the contrivnces that were produced to keep the Earth at the center of the universe.

Anyways, any thoughts from others on this so called MOG?

[Jamotron]

I don't see how dark matter is anything like the 'contrivances... to keep the earth at the center of the universe'. Could you expand on that?

[pzkpfw]

KChrisC, have you read the BAUT forum rules and the advice threads for the ATM forum? When a thread is started here, you are expected to be presenting and defending some idea or claim.

Are you intending to do so for MOG?

If not, we'll need to close this thread. You are welcome to ask questions about MOG over in the Q&A forum - but there you will need to be accepting the mainstream-science answers, not arguing against them.

[korjik]

Just finished reading John Moffat's book on his Modified Gravity theory.

It says that there are three fields associated with gravity: 1. Newton/Einstein gravity here in the solar system-what we are familiar with-looses strength at square of distance; 2. A field that grows in strength with distance and exerts itself at galaxian and larger distances/scales-also withers away at even vaster distances; 3. A third field that can be descibed as anti-gravity which exibits itself when he other two wither away. Accounts for universe expansion acceleration.

Seems that this explaines a lot without the need for the quirky Dark Matter. I have always thought Dark Matter to be contrived, a lot like the contrivnces that were produced to keep the Earth at the center of the universe.

Anyways, any thoughts from others on this so called MOG?

If we were actually able to detect those fields they would explain alot. Since we cant detect those fields, other than the first one, this idea is only speculation.

By the way, Dark Matter is a contrivance. It is a contrivance to explain why galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics dont match anything we can detect on Earth.

That is all that they are.

[JeffD1]

Just finished reading John Moffat's book on his Modified Gravity theory.

It says that there are three fields associated with gravity: 1. Newton/Einstein gravity here in the solar system-what we are familiar with-looses strength at square of distance; 2. A field that grows in strength with distance and exerts itself at galaxian and larger distances/scales-also withers away at even vaster distances; 3. A third field that can be descibed as anti-gravity which exibits itself when he other two wither away. Accounts for universe expansion acceleration.

Seems that this explaines a lot without the need for the quirky Dark Matter. I have always thought Dark Matter to be contrived, a lot like the contrivnces that were produced to keep the Earth at the center of the universe.

Anyways, any thoughts from others on this so called MOG?

I fail to see how Moffat's fields are less of a 'contrivance' than dark matter and yet you seem to be implying that they are.

Do explain, please.(as per guielines for this subforum)

[amazeofdeath]

Modified gravity theories can't explain the Bullet Cluster, in which we have directly observed dark matter's separation from the luminous matter.

[kamaz]

It says that there are three fields associated with gravity:

Hold on. Do you mean two fields, as in B and E field in electromagnetism, or, do you mean that F = F_N*(1+alpha+beta), where F_N is the Newtonian force and alpha and beta are correction factors to account for large-scale effects?

[forrest noble]

KChrisC, welcome to BAUT on your very first posting

The dark matter idea has a big advantage over seemingly all models including GR, that simply use mathematical formulations only. In the dark matter idea they can simply add whatever amount of dark matter needed in different locations throughout and outside and inside of the galaxy to match observations so generally no predictions can be made, and calculations are simply perfunctory and non-functional. Presently they are following specific guidelines concerning how they can apply dark matter but my guess is that a totally consistent application of dark matter will also show to be lacking concerning observations.

Most of these dark-matter proposals include undiscovered particles, whether something like Higg's particle, gravitons, or a variety of other particle-like proposals, as well as the addition of known possible types of matter. If such particles exist as being part of the Zero Point Field (ZPF), then they also could have relative motion to the galaxy as a whole, for instance, that would also determine the force of gravity in that galaxy.

I think the problem with MOG, MOND, and other modified gravity formulations is that they are saying, like GR, that at the stellar scale and smaller up to the galactic scale and larger, that gravity can be boiled down to a set of equations. This idea, I think, is slowly being disproved by observation, regardless of the formulations. Each galaxy, regardless of its mass, seems to have different rotation curves (although some seemingly will be similarities) from all other galaxies.

There may be no mathematical analog to gravity on these scales maybe because there are dark-matter-like particles including their energy of relative motion that make up the ZPF, therefore our best estimates of galactic motions, as they are doing now, may be the best that we ever will be able to do because at these scales gravity may have no calculable formulation to it. I think it may be like trying to figure out an "N" body gravitational problem when you have little detail concerning the masses of individual stars, dark-matter particles of some type, or the relative motions and locations of all of the constituents. I think computer modeling, which would include some mathematical calculation, will remain our best fit to gravity at these scales. This is somewhat similar to what they are doing now where Newtonian gravity would be all that is needed along with the computer program that model the galaxies constituents.

[Strange]

I would point out that neither gravitons nor Higgs bosons are candidates for dark matter.