History of The Modified Newtonian Dynamics/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

	Revision 14 . . December 5, 2001 5:39 am by ManningBartlett [repeat of complaint about maths in article]
	Revision 13 . . (edit) December 5, 2001 4:54 am by Dlebansais
	Revision 12 . . December 3, 2001 9:02 am by Dlebansais
	Revision 11 . . November 21, 2001 12:59 am by Chenyu
	Revision 10 . . November 20, 2001 9:25 pm by ManningBartlett [the maths don't make sense AFAICS]
	Revision 9 . . November 20, 2001 9:24 pm by ManningBartlett [the maths don't make sense AFAICS]
	Revision 8 . . November 20, 2001 9:22 pm by ManningBartlett [a revision, but the maths still don't make sense]
	Revision 7 . . November 20, 2001 9:12 pm by ManningBartlett [the maths don't make much sense AFAICS]
	Revision 6 . . November 20, 2001 3:06 pm by Chenyu
	Revision 5 . . November 4, 2001 10:22 pm by Dlebansais

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 44a45,50

There was no technical question - I'm not inquiring about the theory - I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the article: a₀ is not defined. So based on the information presented here I can easily design an experiment where a₀ is greater than a - simply because at the moment I can set a₀ to any damn value I choose. This will be the case until a better explanation of the nature and definition of a₀ is presented.

Now if this theory was published in a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way such essential aspects were omitted. I am complaining that the information presented here fails to make any sense, because 2 variables (which are critical to the end result) have not been defined. I am not commenting in any way on the theory itself.