This theory could change a whole lot of things in physics. And might provide a way to finally bring Quantum Theory and Relativity together.
General Relativity actually adopted equations that would be consistent with Newtonian Gravity without deriving it from first principles. And probably that is the problem with its current formulation. The Entropic Gravity might provide the deriviation and mechanism for it.
We don't even have a theory that works. We have GR that breaks down as soon as gravity becomes too high, or it becomes too low. It will also not work at too small distances. We have QM which does not work beyond small distances.
Most scientists are not even willing to consider that the theory is broken, but are happy to extrapolate in places where it doesn't go.
There are very few who are even trying to work on a Quantum theory of Gravity. Without which talking about Cosmology and Warp Drives is meaning less.
I wouldn't have much faith in this, precisely because it would have been done based on Newtonian gravity. It does not take care of the MOND phenomenology. With MOND in the picture things may be totally different.
MOND is an empirical equation which predicts the rotation curves based on the visible mass in Galaxies. It works beautifully at Galactic scales but does not work well at cluster scales.
We know that General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) both are mutually incompatible, which indicates that something is wrong in both of them. In addition GR does not work well when we get very high gravitational fields like a black hole. The equations lead to a singularity. It works beautifully when gravity is somewhat lower but doesn't seem to work well below a threshold, which leads us to the prediction of Dark Matter, with really weird properties to account for the lack of observation.
Also GR takes into account only one special constant speed of light or the maximum signal speed. It does not take into account the Planck's Length or the minimal wavelength of the signal. This is probably why it does not work well with QM. The modification due to taking into account the Planck's length may cause MOND we don't know.
But the biggest problem is going to be finding a course that you can take without colliding with a wart at that speed. It will be difficult to avoid anything at that speed. Also there is the problem of energy. With speed your mass increase too, which requires more energy for the same amount of acceleration. It eventually gets very difficult to accelerate.
I know relativity can forever tie us to this rock. But maybe we could survive on colony sized space ships and mine the planets. I don't know if the nearest star system will be reachable in the very near future.
We will need a laser weapon to vaporize any speck that comes in our way, and hope that there is nothing large on our way. Space exploration is not easy but I hope that we do it anyway.
First off we will need to fix this dark matter thing. If there is anything wrong with Newtonian equations of gravity at low accelerations (MOND, pioneer anomaly) then we will chart bad courses.
Actually google does everything thrice (not unlike the Ramans). And returns the result that reaches it first. So in effect it is even more fault tolerant than the Mainframe. And it does them at different locations not on a single Facility (as opposed to a server or a 1AAA sized Container).
Well Bullet Cluster or any other cluster is a problem for MOND. But the Bullet Cluster is also a problem for Dark Matter. The velocity of the Cluster is much faster than GR can provide, which MOND can easily handle.
I actually liken MOND to Keplers laws. It shows how the matter moves. If GR cannot reproduce it, then there is a need for a new theory. TeVeS is a patch which will not survive for very long.
The other problem is that GR and QM don't work well. Possibly when we a proper Quantum Gravity theory then we will find out how MOND comes about. MOND is just an indication of the problem.
I don't disbelieve in Dark Matter, but I am sort of convinced that there is something about MOND. It could be that both MOND and DM are correct. DM may exist in significant quantities in Clusters while MOND is sufficient at the Galactic levels.
Since MOND does revert to GR in high Gravity situations so it will support frame dragging. Anyway we have not much observations in the low gravity situations. The only problem with MOND is that it is not a proper theory. There is now a theory that models MOND called TeVeS which does support Frame Dragging, etc. The theory has not yet been studied to the extent that the really big questions like inflation, nucleosynthesis, WMAP, etc can be worked out.
But one thing is for sure that TeVeS cannot be ultimately correct. We know that the final theory must atleast bring GR and QM together. TeVeS cannot do so.
The whole concept of patents is so 1900ish. There was a time when people could create something and then keep it under wraps, and nobody could discover what they were doing under the hood. Mostly because mostly people with the knowledge were not near the devices.
This allowed a lot of ideas to get lost. Patents were specifically designed to prevent this act. But now in 2000 and the internet this idea is totally useless. There will be always people who can reverse engineer to find out how the thing works. So that particular reason for Patents is patently lost.
Now there is another use of patents to allow people to invest into projects that have a very high risk value. Pharmaceutical companies do have these kinds of projects. I would think there is some use of patents for these sort of companies.
But for the rest of the market Patents are an abomination. They should be abolished. Software industry definitely does not need patents. They already can use copyrights, to control their creations.
One thing that the patent office should do is to require a working prototype. No prototype no patent. And the complete plan should be made open.
Actually it will be very easy to reduce the demand of H1-B visas. Just stop them from being slave laborers to the companies importing them. This can be done by just allowing them to switch jobs, and allowing them to apply for Green Cards without sponsorship.
Currently the companies hold the H1-B visa holders by a tight leash because they can't switch jobs once Green card is applied. Also they can't switch jobs in the early years.
If both these restrictions are removed, companies will not be able to afford to pay their employees less than the fair market value. And then the local people will be able to compete more easily. Companies will not be able to use H1-Bs as a source of cheap employment.
So ask your senators to remove restrictions that cause H1-Bs to be looked as second class employees. Let them be treated at the level they merit, and you will not lose out on jobs.
1) Is it really charity at all if the children's country pays for the hardware? Granted the software is given freely, but that begs the question why must the software be free, but not the hardware?
Well Hardware requires materials, to reproduce. Software does not. So hardware will need to be sold. Software need not. Well OLPC is not a Bill Gates type of charity. The guys don't have money. But it is a higher form of charity, because the guys (and gals) are putting their own effort and money to do it. They have been working for a number of years without any compensation for this.
Compared to Bill Gates who gives a part of his ill-gotten gains (he is a convicted monopolist), as a bribe to the public to forget his ill-doings. And uses this effort as an advertisement.
2) If we accept that one of the greatest benefits to the children is that they can modify the software, then why do we not expect them to be equally able to modify the hardware?
Both the above question belie a profound lack of understanding of the difference between hardware and software. I guess there can be no answer to this stupid question.
3) Do we expect a greater percentage of these children to have an interest in engineering than the children in countries such as the US? If not, then what percentage of the children do we expect to benefit from the ability to modify the software? If so, then why do we expect this to be true?
The question is utterly biased against the children in poor nation. There is a saying that all children are born intelligent, it is there environment that supports their intelligence. There is every chance that children in poor countries will perform better in engineering than in countries like the US. They have a greater need to do so. The children in countries like US are demotivated from going into engineering. Check out several articles on Slashdot about this. You can also check out the higher number of top scorers in your universities of children from countries unlike US.
4) Do we believe that our greatest goal should be to primarily serve the percentage of children who will benefit from the ability to modify the operating system? If so, then what of the percentage who will NOT benefit from this ability? Is engineering the only human endeavour worthy of this charity?
Definitely. Engineering and Sciences are the only worthwhile endeavors. The other professions are support professions. They are required for a healthy society, but engineering and sciences take us to the next level.
5) Which is more important: providing the children with access to books they would otherwise not be able to access, or reducing or eliminating the ability of publishers to profit from textbooks? If the former is the goal, then does it matter whether the books are free (as in liberte) or not? If the latter, does it matter whether or not the children gain access to books?
But nobody is against the ability of publishers to profit from books. They are only against the publishers to profit by restricting the freedoms of other people. It is like the RIAA, which wants to destroy the internet because it has been rendered worthless. Internet is a medium that does not require middlemen. Similarly book publishers would also become redundant, if there were devices which would make ebooks easier to read than books, and became as affordable.
Books are not the be all and end all of OLPC. It is there to allow children to learn how to tinker with software and hardware (to a small extent). It is there to communicate. There are several things. But tinkering is also a large part of it. Going with MS will mean, that tinkering becomes very very difficult.
Windows also doesn't come together with a large no. of applications (even though not as user friendly), that are available free with Linux.
6) How likely is it that Sugar or Gnu/Linux will displace MS Windows outside this market? Is Sugar appropriate f
The Faramir incident was actually a problem in the main story. Why was Faramir not affected by the ring. He should have been. The fact that he wasn't affected was an aberration, which was fixed by Jackson. I like that it was fixed. Jackson must be a huge fan of the book to have understood this glitch, and have done something about it.
I don't remember the difference in the Helm's Deep part. Haven't seen or read it in over a couple of years.
And you have to admit that in several countries (France, Taiwan, Japan, etc) 1+ Mbps without transfer caps is the norm and none have gone out of business. You have to admit that there is little competition in US in Telecommunication Business, and the Telecoms are fleecing their customer, while whining.
Unfortunately the same is true here in India for Internet services, although Mobile is probably the best bargain in India.
I used to have 24Mbps with free calling in 29 countries (including India;-) for 30Euros in Paris. Before leaving another company was offering 60Mbps, Free calling in 100 Countries along with 60 Cable channels all for 35Euros. And none of the companies are going bankrupt. Free (a Telecom company in France) has been operating for at least 5 years and has been making decent money.
Mobiles were a problem in France with really exorbitant costs.
FORTRAN does not use the stack and call semantics. This makes it much faster when writing modular code that is fast. The functions will be implemented as simple jumps rather than calls. Almost all mathematical libraries are written in FORTRAN.
One of our professor used to allow students to carry their textbooks to their exams (which were conducted in a sparsely seated large hall so that nobody could actually talk to each other.
So yes in the exam we couldn't share information for solving the problems but we could use the books. So that kind of cheating (taking small pieces of paper) was completely irrelevant. It required setting questions that tested knowledge rather than memory.
It takes a lot more effort to ask questions that cannot be solved without a deep understanding. Expecting people to not share in homework is stupid. Actually homework should be designed to promote learning, rather than testing. So it should be enforced that everybody did their homework, but it should not be graded.
It is true that the DMA must write to RAM where the DRIVER tells it to. It is the responsibility of the Driver to not write data where the device tells it to, and do proper bounds checking.
I did not say that MOND requires curved space. Just that it could explain MOND. Mass curves space-time and this curvature exerts a force, we know as gravitational force. If the space-time that makes up universe is itself curved say because of the expansion, then that curvature will itself create a force. Which will manifest itself as a force occurring without any matter. This force will tend to force objects into rotational motion. The force will be negligible near large masses, as the gravitational force will dominate, but it will have an affect when the gravitational force is very low, possibly giving rise to a geometric mean force. Further out it should become constant.
The evidence of Bullet Cluster is a mixed bag. It does show that DM exists, in what form we don't know. We can't take WIMP's to be a given. It could be that the WIMP's do not exist, they have not been observed yet. Bullet Cluster also shows that the matter is moving faster than what can be achieved with normal Newtonian Gravitational force, indicating either a new force exclusively between DM particles or MOND. So it actually suggests that both explanations might be correct.
MONDian's are saying that neutrinos may provide enough DM, but maybe there are more forms of DM.
There is nothing wrong with Dark Matter(DM) as a concept. It is certainly possible that DM exists. The only problem with DM (at least at the Galactic scale) is that MOND gives very good results. Its like the Max Planck's corpuscular theory of Black Body Radiation. Planck assumed that radiation could only have some allowed energy levels. This assumption was able to fit the Black Body Radiation curve very well. This is how Quantum theory was born.
Now MOND is similar in nature. It is based on an assumption that at a certain acceleration level gravitational pull no longer drops at r^2 with distance, but drops at r with distance. It is actually defined as a geometric mean of the acceleration due to Newtonian gravity and the special acceleration level. This simple modification works very well at the Galactic level.
DM at galactic scale would be perfectly fine if we did not have MOND work so well.
The other fact is that MOND does not work well beyond galactic scale. I believe that both approaches could be true. MOND and DM can both be true. I suspect that DM could be spread out nearly uniformly. The density might not be sufficient to produce much gravitational effect at galactic scales, but at larger scales, it may produce a large observable effect.
MOND can be explained very easily by GR, if the universe is curved. The problem is that flatness is considered a settled question.
So how much do you think the RIAA pays to the composers. Actually a nickel is pretty decent amount. I would think that much could be payed by the Advertisers. I am pretty sure in the future musicians will be payed by websites like google, earning from advertisers and will pay based on popularity. Rest income for the composers will come from touring, merchandising, signed physical copies, and donations. The niche composers will earn most of their income through donations while superstars will earn most of their income from merchandising and touring.
I think the difference is due to their formation. Mercury I believe was formed naturally out of gas and elements like Earth, and so has volcanoes etc. While Moon is probably a breakaway part of earth, which got formed just before solidification of earth started. So that Moon never had a hot core, and so there was no volcanic activity.
I am also disturbed by the depths to which the RIAA will go to. They are taking away Fair Use Rights. They have been stealing for ages from the authors. They have been ruthlessly controlling the distribution channels.
And the current power struggle is not about them fighting for the rights of authors, but they are fighting for the control of the distribution channels. They can go to any limits for this control, even to the limit of making 1984 a reality.
"d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive."
This is a great idea. We could have something like this.
An intellectual property owner should define the worth of all the intellectual property they own. There should be a minimum amount, below which the property must be released to the public domain.
The value should be defined per piece of property not the cumulative set, and must be defined only once, at registration time. This also means intellectual property only applies if it is registered.
The owner will be charged a property tax every year, a small percentage of the value of the property. If the worth of the property goes much lower such that the registered value and the owner finds the tax too onerous, then they can release the property to public domain.
Infringement penalties for IP will be defined based on the registered value divided by the number of people it was licensed to. A valuable non-licensed product will incur a large infringement penalty, while a highly valuable but mass marketed item will have a small infringement penalty.
It will solve many problems with the Intellectual Property world.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Entropic Gravity is looking very promising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Verlinde claims that it is starting to make some sense of the Dark Matter and Dark Energy problem.
http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis/2012-06-28/discussing-gravity-with-eric-verlinde
This theory could change a whole lot of things in physics. And might provide a way to finally bring Quantum Theory and Relativity together.
General Relativity actually adopted equations that would be consistent with Newtonian Gravity without deriving it from first principles.
And probably that is the problem with its current formulation. The Entropic Gravity might provide the deriviation and mechanism for it.
We don't even have a theory that works. We have GR that breaks down as soon as gravity becomes too high, or it becomes too low. It will also not work at too small distances. We have QM which does not work beyond small distances.
Most scientists are not even willing to consider that the theory is broken, but are happy to extrapolate in places where it doesn't go.
There are very few who are even trying to work on a Quantum theory of Gravity. Without which talking about Cosmology and Warp Drives is meaning less.
-anand
I wouldn't have much faith in this, precisely because it would have been done based on Newtonian gravity. It does not take care of the MOND phenomenology. With MOND in the picture things may be totally different.
MOND is an empirical equation which predicts the rotation curves based on the visible mass in Galaxies. It works beautifully at Galactic scales but does not work well at cluster scales.
We know that General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) both are mutually incompatible, which indicates that something is wrong in both of them. In addition GR does not work well when we get very high gravitational fields like a black hole. The equations lead to a singularity. It works beautifully when gravity is somewhat lower but doesn't seem to work well below a threshold, which leads us to the prediction of Dark Matter, with really weird properties to account for the lack of observation.
Also GR takes into account only one special constant speed of light or the maximum signal speed. It does not take into account the Planck's Length or the minimal wavelength of the signal. This is probably why it does not work well with QM. The modification due to taking into account the Planck's length may cause MOND we don't know.
-anand
But the biggest problem is going to be finding a course that you can take without colliding with a wart at that speed. It will be difficult to avoid anything at that speed. Also there is the problem of energy. With speed your mass increase too, which requires more energy for the same amount of acceleration. It eventually gets very difficult to accelerate.
I know relativity can forever tie us to this rock. But maybe we could survive on colony sized space ships and mine the planets. I don't know if the nearest star system will be reachable in the very near future.
We will need a laser weapon to vaporize any speck that comes in our way, and hope that there is nothing large on our way.
Space exploration is not easy but I hope that we do it anyway.
First off we will need to fix this dark matter thing. If there is anything wrong with Newtonian equations of gravity at low accelerations (MOND, pioneer anomaly) then we will chart bad courses.
Actually google does everything thrice (not unlike the Ramans). And returns the result that reaches it first. So in effect it is even more fault tolerant than the Mainframe. And it does them at different locations not on a single Facility (as opposed to a server or a 1AAA sized Container).
You are underestimating Google.
Well Bullet Cluster or any other cluster is a problem for MOND. But the Bullet Cluster is also a problem for Dark Matter. The velocity of the Cluster is much faster than GR can provide, which MOND can easily handle.
I actually liken MOND to Keplers laws. It shows how the matter moves. If GR cannot reproduce it, then there is a need for a new theory. TeVeS is a patch which will not survive for very long.
The other problem is that GR and QM don't work well. Possibly when we a proper Quantum Gravity theory then we will find out how MOND comes about. MOND is just an indication of the problem.
I don't disbelieve in Dark Matter, but I am sort of convinced that there is something about MOND. It could be that both MOND and DM are correct. DM may exist in significant quantities in Clusters while MOND is sufficient at the Galactic levels.
Since MOND does revert to GR in high Gravity situations so it will support frame dragging. Anyway we have not much observations in the low gravity situations. The only problem with MOND is that it is not a proper theory. There is now a theory that models MOND called TeVeS which does support Frame Dragging, etc. The theory has not yet been studied to the extent that the really big questions like inflation, nucleosynthesis, WMAP, etc can be worked out.
But one thing is for sure that TeVeS cannot be ultimately correct. We know that the final theory must atleast bring GR and QM together. TeVeS cannot do so.
MS was the cheapest game in the town, till Linux came about.
Similarly for other cheap products.
The writeup doesn't say how the conjecture avoids it.
The whole concept of patents is so 1900ish. There was a time when people could create something and then keep it under wraps, and nobody could discover what they were doing under the hood. Mostly because mostly people with the knowledge were not near the devices.
This allowed a lot of ideas to get lost. Patents were specifically designed to prevent this act. But now in 2000 and the internet this idea is totally useless. There will be always people who can reverse engineer to find out how the thing works. So that particular reason for Patents is patently lost.
Now there is another use of patents to allow people to invest into projects that have a very high risk value. Pharmaceutical companies do have these kinds of projects. I would think there is some use of patents for these sort of companies.
But for the rest of the market Patents are an abomination. They should be abolished. Software industry definitely does not need patents. They already can use copyrights, to control their creations.
One thing that the patent office should do is to require a working prototype. No prototype no patent. And the complete plan should be made open.
Actually it will be very easy to reduce the demand of H1-B visas. Just stop them from being slave laborers to the companies importing them. This can be done by just allowing them to switch jobs, and allowing them to apply for Green Cards without sponsorship.
Currently the companies hold the H1-B visa holders by a tight leash because they can't switch jobs once Green card is applied. Also they can't switch jobs in the early years.
If both these restrictions are removed, companies will not be able to afford to pay their employees less than the fair market value. And then the local people will be able to compete more easily. Companies will not be able to use H1-Bs as a source of cheap employment.
So ask your senators to remove restrictions that cause H1-Bs to be looked as second class employees. Let them be treated at the level they merit, and you will not lose out on jobs.
1) Is it really charity at all if the children's country pays for the hardware? Granted the software is given freely, but that begs the question why must the software be free, but not the hardware?
Well Hardware requires materials, to reproduce. Software does not. So hardware will need to be sold. Software need not. Well OLPC is not a Bill Gates type of charity. The guys don't have money. But it is a higher form of charity, because the guys (and gals) are putting their own effort and money to do it. They have been working for a number of years without any compensation for this.
Compared to Bill Gates who gives a part of his ill-gotten gains (he is a convicted monopolist), as a bribe to the public to forget his ill-doings. And uses this effort as an advertisement.
2) If we accept that one of the greatest benefits to the children is that they can modify the software, then why do we not expect them to be equally able to modify the hardware?
Both the above question belie a profound lack of understanding of the difference between hardware and software. I guess there can be no answer to this stupid question.
3) Do we expect a greater percentage of these children to have an interest in engineering than the children in countries such as the US? If not, then what percentage of the children do we expect to benefit from the ability to modify the software? If so, then why do we expect this to be true?
The question is utterly biased against the children in poor nation. There is a saying that all children are born intelligent, it is there environment that supports their intelligence. There is every chance that children in poor countries will perform better in engineering than in countries like the US. They have a greater need to do so. The children in countries like US are demotivated from going into engineering. Check out several articles on Slashdot about this. You can also check out the higher number of top scorers in your universities of children from countries unlike US.
4) Do we believe that our greatest goal should be to primarily serve the percentage of children who will benefit from the ability to modify the operating system? If so, then what of the percentage who will NOT benefit from this ability? Is engineering the only human endeavour worthy of this charity?
Definitely. Engineering and Sciences are the only worthwhile endeavors. The other professions are support professions. They are required for a healthy society, but engineering and sciences take us to the next level.
5) Which is more important: providing the children with access to books they would otherwise not be able to access, or reducing or eliminating the ability of publishers to profit from textbooks? If the former is the goal, then does it matter whether the books are free (as in liberte) or not? If the latter, does it matter whether or not the children gain access to books?
But nobody is against the ability of publishers to profit from books. They are only against the publishers to profit by restricting the freedoms of other people. It is like the RIAA, which wants to destroy the internet because it has been rendered worthless. Internet is a medium that does not require middlemen. Similarly book publishers would also become redundant, if there were devices which would make ebooks easier to read than books, and became as affordable.
Books are not the be all and end all of OLPC. It is there to allow children to learn how to tinker with software and hardware (to a small extent). It is there to communicate. There are several things. But tinkering is also a large part of it. Going with MS will mean, that tinkering becomes very very difficult.
Windows also doesn't come together with a large no. of applications (even though not as user friendly), that are available free with Linux.
6) How likely is it that Sugar or Gnu/Linux will displace MS Windows outside this market? Is Sugar appropriate f
I agree with this. But I guess for such a long dark movie, some comic relief is required for the general public.
The Faramir incident was actually a problem in the main story. Why was Faramir not affected by the ring. He should have been. The fact that he wasn't affected was an aberration, which was fixed by Jackson. I like that it was fixed. Jackson must be a huge fan of the book to have understood this glitch, and have done something about it.
I don't remember the difference in the Helm's Deep part. Haven't seen or read it in over a couple of years.
And you have to admit that in several countries (France, Taiwan, Japan, etc) 1+ Mbps without transfer caps is the norm and none have gone out of business. You have to admit that there is little competition in US in Telecommunication Business, and the Telecoms are fleecing their customer, while whining.
;-) for 30Euros in Paris. Before leaving another company was offering 60Mbps, Free calling in 100 Countries along with 60 Cable channels all for 35Euros. And none of the companies are going bankrupt. Free (a Telecom company in France) has been operating for at least 5 years and has been making decent money.
Unfortunately the same is true here in India for Internet services, although Mobile is probably the best bargain in India.
I used to have 24Mbps with free calling in 29 countries (including India
Mobiles were a problem in France with really exorbitant costs.
FORTRAN does not use the stack and call semantics. This makes it much faster when writing modular code that is fast. The functions will be implemented as simple jumps rather than calls. Almost all mathematical libraries are written in FORTRAN.
One of our professor used to allow students to carry their textbooks to their exams (which were conducted in a sparsely seated large hall so that nobody could actually talk to each other.
So yes in the exam we couldn't share information for solving the problems but we could use the books. So that kind of cheating (taking small pieces of paper) was completely irrelevant. It required setting questions that tested knowledge rather than memory.
It takes a lot more effort to ask questions that cannot be solved without a deep understanding.
Expecting people to not share in homework is stupid. Actually homework should be designed to promote learning, rather than testing. So it should be enforced that everybody did their homework, but it should not be graded.
It is true that the DMA must write to RAM where the DRIVER tells it to. It is the responsibility of the Driver to not write data where the device tells it to, and do proper bounds checking.
There are a finite number of exploitable bugs in Windows XP for very large values of finite.
I did not say that MOND requires curved space. Just that it could explain MOND. Mass curves space-time and this curvature exerts a force, we know as gravitational force. If the space-time that makes up universe is itself curved say because of the expansion, then that curvature will itself create a force. Which will manifest itself as a force occurring without any matter. This force will tend to force objects into rotational motion. The force will be negligible near large masses, as the gravitational force will dominate, but it will have an affect when the gravitational force is very low, possibly giving rise to a geometric mean force. Further out it should become constant.
The evidence of Bullet Cluster is a mixed bag. It does show that DM exists, in what form we don't know. We can't take WIMP's to be a given. It could be that the WIMP's do not exist, they have not been observed yet. Bullet Cluster also shows that the matter is moving faster than what can be achieved with normal Newtonian Gravitational force, indicating either a new force exclusively between DM particles or MOND. So it actually suggests that both explanations might be correct.
MONDian's are saying that neutrinos may provide enough DM, but maybe there are more forms of DM.
for the fact that MOND gives good results.
There is nothing wrong with Dark Matter(DM) as a concept. It is certainly possible that DM exists. The only problem with DM (at least at the Galactic scale) is that MOND gives very good results. Its like the Max Planck's corpuscular theory of Black Body Radiation. Planck assumed that radiation could only have some allowed energy levels. This assumption was able to fit the Black Body Radiation curve very well. This is how Quantum theory was born.
Now MOND is similar in nature. It is based on an assumption that at a certain acceleration level gravitational pull no longer drops at r^2 with distance, but drops at r with distance. It is actually defined as a geometric mean of the acceleration due to Newtonian gravity and the special acceleration level. This simple modification works very well at the Galactic level.
DM at galactic scale would be perfectly fine if we did not have MOND work so well.
The other fact is that MOND does not work well beyond galactic scale. I believe that both approaches could be true. MOND and DM can both be true. I suspect that DM could be spread out nearly uniformly. The density might not be sufficient to produce much gravitational effect at galactic scales, but at larger scales, it may produce a large observable effect.
MOND can be explained very easily by GR, if the universe is curved. The problem is that flatness is considered a settled question.
So how much do you think the RIAA pays to the composers. Actually a nickel is pretty decent amount. I would think that much could be payed by the Advertisers. I am pretty sure in the future musicians will be payed by websites like google, earning from advertisers and will pay based on popularity. Rest income for the composers will come from touring, merchandising, signed physical copies, and donations. The niche composers will earn most of their income through donations while superstars will earn most of their income from merchandising and touring.
I think the difference is due to their formation. Mercury I believe was formed naturally out of gas and elements like Earth, and so has volcanoes etc. While Moon is probably a breakaway part of earth, which got formed just before solidification of earth started. So that Moon never had a hot core, and so there was no volcanic activity.
I am also disturbed by the depths to which the RIAA will go to. They are taking away Fair Use Rights. They have been stealing for ages from the authors. They have been ruthlessly controlling the distribution channels.
And the current power struggle is not about them fighting for the rights of authors, but they are fighting for the control of the distribution channels. They can go to any limits for this control, even to the limit of making 1984 a reality.
"d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive."
This is a great idea. We could have something like this.
An intellectual property owner should define the worth of all the intellectual property they own. There should be a minimum amount, below which the property must be released to the public domain.
The value should be defined per piece of property not the cumulative set, and must be defined only once, at registration time. This also means intellectual property only applies if it is registered.
The owner will be charged a property tax every year, a small percentage of the value of the property. If the worth of the property goes much lower such that the registered value and the owner finds the tax too onerous, then they can release the property to public domain.
Infringement penalties for IP will be defined based on the registered value divided by the number of people it was licensed to. A valuable non-licensed product will incur a large infringement penalty, while a highly valuable but mass marketed item will have a small infringement penalty.
It will solve many problems with the Intellectual Property world.