Hi there, there's a discussion going on over here about whether it would be best to merge the Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity article into Modified Newtonian dynamics. Please drop by to let us know your thoughts. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the MOND article needs a revision too. MOND is how Newtonian dynamics is modified. The conceptual problems of the MOND approach is to be highlighted. The experimental tests on the validity of Newtonian Dynamics in small acceleration should be added.
It should be clearly highlighted that another approach is to change the dynamics of gravity. A connection to the various covariant modified gravities (defined as theories of metrics, connection in the Riemannian manifold) is needed. The problems of these theories should be concisely addressed. Within this section it should be highlighted that MONDian gravity can be introduced by adding extra degrees of freedom (degrees in addition to the metric). The simplest one is the extension of Newtonian gravity (as partially covered in article). This approach implies introducing an scalar. Scalar-Tensor gravities can not describe gravitational lensing. So a vector is to be added to. This makes the Scalar-Vector-Tensor gravity. No body has ever told us that the MOND behavior should be due to an scalar. It should than be added we can add gauge vectors instead of scalar and make the theory covariant.
Every thing depends on how much you decide to extend and correct the MOND article.
Please pay attention that the subject passes the main verifiable evidence of wikipedia, as stated in notable enough. The subject is covered in a recognized peer reviewed publication. The subject clearly is not referring to a self-published concept. Why should Wikipedia insist that a scientific theory, as accepted by a recognized peer publication, should not be promptly covered? Why do you insist that public or general interested reader should not have first-handed access to the new theories or understanding accepted by the scientific community?
Lets make the stream of science more accessible to the general public. This is the soul and the aim of the Wikipedia as I currently perceive it.
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, there's a discussion going on over here about whether it would be best to merge the Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity article into Modified Newtonian dynamics. Please drop by to let us know your thoughts. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the MOND article needs a revision too. MOND is how Newtonian dynamics is modified. The conceptual problems of the MOND approach is to be highlighted. The experimental tests on the validity of Newtonian Dynamics in small acceleration should be added.
It should be clearly highlighted that another approach is to change the dynamics of gravity. A connection to the various covariant modified gravities (defined as theories of metrics, connection in the Riemannian manifold) is needed. The problems of these theories should be concisely addressed. Within this section it should be highlighted that MONDian gravity can be introduced by adding extra degrees of freedom (degrees in addition to the metric). The simplest one is the extension of Newtonian gravity (as partially covered in article). This approach implies introducing an scalar. Scalar-Tensor gravities can not describe gravitational lensing. So a vector is to be added to. This makes the Scalar-Vector-Tensor gravity. No body has ever told us that the MOND behavior should be due to an scalar. It should than be added we can add gauge vectors instead of scalar and make the theory covariant.
Every thing depends on how much you decide to extend and correct the MOND article.
Please pay attention that the subject passes the main verifiable evidence of wikipedia, as stated in notable enough. The subject is covered in a recognized peer reviewed publication. The subject clearly is not referring to a self-published concept. Why should Wikipedia insist that a scientific theory, as accepted by a recognized peer publication, should not be promptly covered? Why do you insist that public or general interested reader should not have first-handed access to the new theories or understanding accepted by the scientific community?
Lets make the stream of science more accessible to the general public. This is the soul and the aim of the Wikipedia as I currently perceive it.
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)