We welcome and encourage comments to all blog posts by scientists and non-scientists alike, but kindly ask you to follow a few simple guidelines:

• Remain friendly and focus on a fact-based discussion.
• The comment should be related to the blog post.
• Please stick to discussing (peer-reviewed) science, do not try to advertise your own pet theories (e.g. no links to viXra etc.)!

Comments which are in conflict with these guidelines, which are rude or which are obvious spam will be deleted without warning. In some cases, in particular if the comment is not or only barely related to the article, discusses a non-peer-reviewed publication and/or particularly ‘creative’ theories, we might move the comment to this page instead. We decided for this policy to allow a maximum of transparency, while keeping the discussions on the blog posts themselves on topic and scientific.

We had a recent case where a submitted comment to The Dark Matter Crisis did not appear in the system, the comment being swallowed. The user had to use a different browser to submit the comment which we then approved. In case you submit a comment and it does not appear, try another browser and/or send us an email.

Comments to “LUX: Results from another direct (non-)detection experiment for Dark Matter”

1. Peter Fred 13 November 2013 6:10pm
   I like MOND because because its an alternate theory that can account for the flat rotation curves. I do not like because it seems unnatural that Newton’s law should break down at low accelerations. I, instead, champion Kepler’s idea that it is the sun’s luminosity that attracts the planets and not its mass. I have experiments that confirm that light is indeed gravitationally attractive. However,I am an amateur and not certified. So why bother examining my observed easy-to-replicate 10% change of weight of the test mass. Fortunately now there happens to be someone else (Dmitriev) besides me that has observed a change of weight of the test mass when it is subjected to heat. He concludes one of his papers with the remark “Temperature dependence of force of gravitation is one of the fundamental problems of physics.” I agree with him. But does anybody else even think that there might be some validity with Kepler’s totally reasonable idea that it is the sun light and not its mass that does the attracting?
   See http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v79/v79-204.pdf for his work and
   http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018 for mine.

Comments to “Pavel Kroupa on ‘The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda ‘”

1. Peter Fred 23 November 2013 5:48pm Pavel Kroupa:, What does the Tully-Fisher Law tell you? The truth is starring you right in the face and you do not see it. Could it be that there is a causal relation between a galaxy’s light output and its “highest” rotational velocity?
   Milgrom’s MOND hypothesis is very similar to Bohr’s highly predictive quantisized angular momentum hypothesis. Both seem ad hoc and “unphysical” or “unnatural”. A. Dmitriev has now repeated experiments showing that heat can change weight of a test mass (which raises questions about the equivalence principle). I get a much greater change of weight of my test mass because I add heat from below and coldness from the top to the test mass. . A radiation-based gravity theory makes would have great comprehension because there is not a galaxy or a star that does not give off copious amounts of light.
   http://screencast.com/t/lIqqQqIQQ
   http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018

Comments to “First Workshop on Progress in Modelling Galaxy Formation and Evolution in Milgromian dynamics — first results achieved with the Phantom of Ramses (PoR) code”

1. lin chen 7 September 2015 9:18pm

   Greetings!I   have just found out the coming workshop and i understand it is too late to submit a paper for the workshop. But I wonder if I could attend the workshop as a participant. I am a professor of economics in Korea. Thank you.Sincerely yours,
   Lin chen