Response to Email Letter from Prof. McGaugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stacy McGaugh" (ssm@astro.umd.edu)
To: "ejeong" (ejeong1@sbcglobal.net)
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Dark Matter is Real

> Yes, it is well known that in MOND there must be more mass than meets the
> eye (about a factor of two, presumably in some mundane baryonic form).
> The recent cluster press releases merely confirm this; they don't shed any
> light on the nature of the unseen mass (baryonic or non-baryonic) which
> makes all the difference.

> Professor Stacy McGaugh
> Department of Astronomy ssm@astro.umd.edu


I think the whole matter will eventually boil down to the priority issue. We haven't exhausted the known theory of gravitation, ie, general relativity. It looks like there are plenty of rooms for the dark matter problem to be taken care of within general relativity without the fundamental destruction of the existing Newtonian mechanics.

That's a humongous assumption. Occam's razor makes it a little bit hard for us to take it in.

Dipole gravity also demands the overhaul of Newtonian mechanics but not in such an arbitrary way. There is a clear cut path to the revision dictated by general relativity.

There is no ad hoc assumption in dipole gravity. It is general relativity itself.

Does MOND predict jets and provide the elaborate jet engine mechanism also? I don't think so. Does it provide any remote clues to the mechanism of creating the macroscopic wormhole, the ultimate method of space travel? No.

I don't know why anyone would want to stick to MOND after the revelation of dipole gravity other than based purely on the sentimental values, which scientists must avoid.

EJJ