[Fret Work Step By Step.rar
Everardo Laboy
I had the same problem as you due to an installation of PhotoStage by NCH. I can say that the program set all kind of file associations, but in a wrong and buggy way. To restore your icons back to normal (your own programs association, not windows default), you have to search on regedit for this string
Note: this string corresponds to the icon that was showing in my specific case, so the last number (it's an index) could be different. Try to localize a string for a file association that you know is wrong and take the index value from there. If I remember correctly, the icon showing on my end was the pdf one. Everything showed the PDF File icon.
The problem possibly could be a virus infection, or perhaps you need to rebuild the icon cache (you can do that with a program). If you suspect the problem to be a virus infection you can check your computer for viruses/malware with Malwarebytes AntiMalware, and also look for Adware with this program (AdwCleaner).
A program you use can also have changed the icon for those files: for change the icon and the associated program to open those files, set a custom program to always open the JPEG files (do the same with RAR files). For that do this:
The problem is simply that you either installed, or (accidentally) manually configured, some other program to associate with those file types. When a program is associated with a file type, it will usually change the file's icon. A program could also have directly changed the icon without messing with the file association, but that's uncommon. Either way, it's a pretty simple registry change.
There might not actually be any problem, per se; a new program (or new version of an existing program) that can open those file types may simply have changed the icon. This isn't always desirable behavior, but it's not usually harmful.
What are the outputs of those commands? The output of the second command is the path to, and name of, the program that handles those file types and is therefore probably the one that set the icon. (In theory, the icon and the association could be set by different programs, but in practice they're pretty much always set together.)
I recently downloaded NCH Software... ExpressScribe. I did not notice this until today, after 3 days, but the exact icon images the OP shows in their figure above was what my files looked like as well. I was confused. This SuperUser answer was the first search item on Google to show up. Thankfully.
I followed suit, before coming here. This answer is for those who right-clicked the file(s) and chose Default Program as WinRAR or whichever your default is for the file types that were changed without your knowledge and/or permission, but where the icon did NOT change leaving you even more confused than before!
Do not fret, I figured it out. I went to START then typed change file associations then from the list I chose Set Your Default Programs and when that didn't work, I went back and chose Set Files to Open With a Specific Program ... and this is where I discovered the fix.
Again, the data disagree with the data. The stellar data from Gaia disagree with the terminal velocity data from interstellar gas at high significance. The RAR model was fit to the latter, so it must per force disagree with the former. It is tempting to dismiss one or the other as wrong, but do they really disagree?
The bumps and wiggles are explicitly part of the RAR model. Consequently, the gradient term in the Jeans equation has a modest but important impact on the result. Applying it to the Gaia data, I get the black points:
OK, why are binary stars interesting to the missing mass (really the acceleration discrepancy) problem? In principle, they allow us to distinguish between dark matter and modified gravity theories like MOND. If galactic mass discrepancies are caused by a diffuse distribution of dark matter, gravity is normal, and binary stars should orbit each other as Newton predicts, no matter their separation: the dark matter is too diffuse to have an impact on such comparatively tiny scales. If instead the force law changes at some critical scale, then the orbital speeds of widely separated binary pairs that exceed this scale should get a boost relative to the Newtonian case.
In MOND, there is the External Field Effect (EFE) in which the acceleration from distant sources can matter to the motion of a local system. This violates the strong but not the weak Equivalence Principle. In MOND, all accelerative tugs matter, whereas conventionally only local effects matter.
This is important here, as we live in a relatively high acceleration neighborhood that is close to a0. The acceleration the sun feels towards the Galactic center is about 1.8 a0. This applies to all the stars in the solar neighborhood, so even if one finds a binary pair that is widely separated enough for the force of one star on another to be less than a0, they both feel the 1.8 a0 of the greater Galaxy. A lot of math intervenes, with the net effect being that the predicted boost over Newton is less than it would have been in the absence of this effect. There is still a boost, but its predicted amplitude is less than one might naively hope.
One of the first papers to address this is Hernandez et al (2022). They found a boost in speed that looks like MOND but is not MOND. Rather, it is consistent with the larger speed that is predicted by MOND in the absence of the EFE. This implies that the radial acceleration relation depicted above is absolute, and somehow more fundamental than MOND. This would require a new theory that is very similar to MOND but lacks the EFE, which seems necessary in other situations. Weird.
A thorough study has independently been made by Pittordis & Sutherland (2023). I heard a talk by them over Zoom that motivated the previous post to set the stage for this one. They identify a huge sample of over 73,000 wide binaries within 300 pc of the sun. Contrary to Hernandez et al., they find no boost at all. The motions of binaries appear to remain perfectly Keplerian. There is no hint of MOND-like effects. Different.
OK, so that is pretty strong evidence against MOND, as Indranil Banik was describing to me at the IAU meeting in Potsdam, which is why I knew to tune in for the talk by Pittordis. But before I could write this post, yet another paper appeared. This preprint by Kyu-Hyun Chae splits the difference. It finds a clear excess over the Newtonian expectation that is formally highly significant. It is also about right for what is expected in MOND with the EFE, in particular with the AQUAL flavor of MOND developed by Bekenstein & Milgrom (1984).
Another complication is the orientation and eccentricity of orbits. The plane of the orbit of each binary pair will be inclined to our line of sight so that the velocity we measure is only a portion of the full velocity. We do not have any way to know what the inclination of any one wide binary is; it is hard enough to identify them and get a relative velocity on the plane of the sky. So we have to resort to statistical estimates. The same goes for the eccentricities of the orbits: not all orbits are circles; indeed, most are not. The orbital speed depends on where an object is along its elliptical orbit, as Kepler taught us. So yet again we must make some statistical inference about the distribution of eccentricities. These kinds of estimates are both doable and subject to going badly wrong.
I had written most of the post below the line before an exchange with a senior colleague who accused me of asking us to abandon General Relativity (GR). Anyone who read the last post knows that this is the opposite of true. So how does this happen?
I understand that MOND seems impossible. It also keeps having its predictions come true. This combination is what makes it important. The history of science is chock full of ideas that were initially rejected as impossible or absurd, going all the way back to heliocentrism. The greater the cognitive dissonance, the more important the result.
The cosmological principle is extremely useful for solving the equations of GR as applied to the whole universe. If the universe has a uniform density on average, then the solution is straightforward (though it is rather tedious to work through to the Friedmann equation). If the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic, then it becomes a nightmare to solve the equations. One needs to know where everything was for all of time.
MOND departs from isotropy for the same reason it forms structure fast: it is inherently non-linear. As well as predicting that big galaxies would form by z=10, Sanders (1998) correctly anticipated the size of the largest structures collapsing today (things like the local supercluster Laniakea) and the scale of homogeneity (a few hundred Mpc if there is a cosmological constant). Pretty much everyone who looked into it came to similar conclusions.
But MOND and cosmology, as we know it in the absence of UT, are incompatible. Where LCDM encompasses both cosmology and the dynamics of bound systems (dark matter halos3), MOND addresses the dynamics of low acceleration systems (the most common examples being individual galaxies) but says nothing about cosmology. So how do we proceed?
4I have entirely lost patience with this attitude. If a phenomena is correctly predicted in advance in the literature, we are obliged as scientists to take it seriously+. Pretending that it is not meaningful in the absence of UT is just an avoidance strategy: an excuse to ignore inconvenient facts.
There are still some outliers as there are still things that can go wrong. Inclinations are a challenge for some galaxies, as are distances determinations. Remember that Tully-Fisher was first employed as a distance indicator. If we look at the plot above from that perspective, the outliers have obviously been assigned the wrong distance, and we would assign a new one by putting them on the relation. That, in a nutshell, is how astronomical distance indicators work.
795a8134c1