Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do We Need to Revise General Relativity?
Real Clear Science ^ | Ross Pomeroy

Posted on 05/20/2016 11:56:18 AM PDT by MtnClimber

The idea that our Universe is filled with dark matter has been around for nearly a century. When astronomers noticed that orbital speeds towards the edges of spiral galaxies remain the same or even increase slightly, rather than decrease, they surmised that either there must be some huge unseen mass driving the rotation, or that the laws of gravity given by Einstein's General Relativity need to be changed. They elected the first option.

Over that time, cosmologists have accumulated boatloads of evidence in favor of the notion that this invisible, "dark" matter -- which neither interacts with nor emits light -- comprises roughly 84% of the mass of the Universe. So compelling is this story that millions and millions of dollars have been spent on ingenious experiments to actually detect the stuff, but thus far, the particles have remained elusive.

It is partly because of dark matter's inherent ability to not be found that, in 1983, Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom proposed an upstart theory to challenge its dominance. Modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND for short, dares to go where physicists of the past dared not: It slightly tweaks the laws of gravity put forth by Einstein's General Relativity. While the changes are subtle, only affecting Einstein's equations at very low accelerations, the ramifications are massive. General Relativity has remained essentially unscathed for over a century.

And yet MOND matches its audacity with surprising veracity. It successfully accounts for galaxy rotation curves just as well, and in some cases, even a little bit better than dark matter. Moreover, no evidence has come to light that conclusively disproves MOND. That's quite an accomplishment, as the annals of physics are littered with the corpses of theories that challenged General Relativity and failed.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: darkenergy; darkforce; darkmatter; generalrelativity; realclearscience; relativity; rosspomeroy; specialrelativity; speedofdark; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: nickcarraway

He was fired when Hillary fired all the cattle guards on federal land.


21 posted on 05/20/2016 12:39:08 PM PDT by TStro (Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

I’m pretty good with the current theory of relativity. Have an uncle that could be better, but that is about it.


22 posted on 05/20/2016 12:41:14 PM PDT by cornfedcowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
I dunno, it'll be pretty hard to dethrone Big Al and his crowning achievement, GTR. The theory may very well be incomplete, but it may be absolutely accurate for the problems for which it's suited.

As I recall, there have been experiments to determine if the force of gravity varies with distance, and as far as I know none so far has shown any variation, over distances long or short.

Should be a very interesting next 100 years in physics.

23 posted on 05/20/2016 1:16:25 PM PDT by LiveFree99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ganeemead
There is no such thing as “dark matter”...

Matter of fact, it's all dark!

(With apologies to Pink Floyd)

24 posted on 05/20/2016 1:18:39 PM PDT by Jeff F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
"Ultimately, what we want is irrelevant. Science is not a consensus endeavor: the data rule."

Hmmm...That does not seem to be the consensus among scientists.

25 posted on 05/20/2016 1:32:54 PM PDT by TheDon (BO must be replaced immediately for the good of the nation and the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I’ll enlighten you. It’s called a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. It’s an important part of science. Dark matter is a product of insanely hard mathematics.

But if an input is wrong, or the equation is a false construct, the math cannot predict a thing.

But that aside, a hypothesis is made based upon observation. The resulting equation describing that hypothesis tells you there should be dark matter. It tells you that that its 84% of the universe. You look everywhere, in every possible way. But you cannot find a single particle or sign of it.

At that point in science, you have to assume your hypothesis may be wrong and go back to the beginning, and test your way forward again.

But what you may not do and still call it science, is to say “we didn’t find what was predicted, ergo, it’s invisible”, and cobble on more math to explain THAT.

This is precisely the magical thinking we ridicule young earth creationists for. When confronted with the amount of time it takes a light to travel from a known star exceeding their date of 4500 years, they tell us god created the light in mid flight. This is their way of reconciling the observed, with known physics. It’s childish.
The logic of the lack of evidence of dark matter, but still believing in it, is also found in the Malleus Maleficarum.
Dark matter appears to be the same.


26 posted on 05/20/2016 1:38:12 PM PDT by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

It is set up now to where nothing can falsify Dark Matter. If it isn’t found, then more magic is ascribed to it. The one conclusion you may not reach, is that is doesn’t exist.

Math is fine. Mathematics predicted to Ptolomy the diameter of the earth. He turned out to be accurate to within 1%. His math described a reality. This is science.
Dark matter is much more akin to the “science” that proved the existence of witches, etc. It is deeply flawed and in another 200 years people will laugh at us.


27 posted on 05/20/2016 1:44:15 PM PDT by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

Great that they can soon test it.


And it sounds like an interesting test. I didn’t even know a black hole had a shadow.


28 posted on 05/20/2016 1:54:34 PM PDT by samtheman (Trump For America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Pleas, allow me.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/18/10609/

29 posted on 05/20/2016 2:04:02 PM PDT by misanthrope (Liberalism; it is not unthinking ignorance, it is malignant evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Doesn’t gravity have to be faster than light in order for it to work?


30 posted on 05/20/2016 2:10:29 PM PDT by jimbo807
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

A quote in the article from one of the scientists...

“Science is not a consensus endeavor: the data rule.”

He needs to pass this on to all the warmist “scientists” out there.


31 posted on 05/20/2016 2:45:11 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
General Tso was unavailable for comment.

He chickened out.

32 posted on 05/20/2016 3:52:34 PM PDT by FroggyTheGremlim (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: misanthrope

A mildly interesting notion, certainly one of the better crackpot theories I’ve seen.
If it’s that simple (and correct), then it would have been adopted & proven long ago. That it hasn’t, vs the enormous effort going into such strained concepts as String Theory and Dark Matter, is a good Occam’s Razor indication that it’s not true.
That he’s explaining the basic concept of vectors in Chapter 4 (of 11) indicates we’re not dealing with a particularly sophisticated author nor a sophisticated intended audience.
It’s an interesting notion, but seems an extended pursuit would fail to produce seriously useful results.


33 posted on 05/20/2016 4:47:00 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Dark Matter may very well be a Dead End. It was worth pursuing as hard science, but like String Theory isn’t working out so well. Time for some different approaches.

And thanks for mentioning the “light mid flight” notion. I’m surprised how few “young Earth” types have considered it, and how many (when presented therewith) don’t grasp the absurd consequences.


34 posted on 05/20/2016 4:50:23 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Dark Matter = The ‘Epicycles’ of old. Might be a useful mathematical plug in in some situations, but does not describe reality. I think somewhere cosmology took a real wrong turn. Lots of it seems like assumptions built on assumptions, ad infinitum. Even if all of these assumptions have a 95% probability of being correct, when enough are strung together, the chance of a correct end result becomes nil.


35 posted on 05/20/2016 5:20:53 PM PDT by The Continental Op
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
I propose that there is dark space and dark time as well.

Why limit one's imagination?

36 posted on 05/20/2016 5:32:38 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Certainly one of the more interesting deployments of Occam's Razor I've seen.

Electric Universe theory explains most, if not all, of cosmological phenomina observed without the use of undetectable and unprovable contrivances (black holes, dark energy, dark matter, etc).

Electric Universe theory will also explain many terrestrial and extra-terrestrial geological phenomena.

Electromagnetic forces are many orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, and do explain what we see quite nicely.

Spend a little more time with it before you dismiss it as "crackpot".

37 posted on 05/21/2016 3:27:09 AM PDT by misanthrope (Liberalism; it is not unthinking ignorance, it is malignant evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: misanthrope

Usually if a seemingly good idea isn’t accepted there’s a good reason why.
Especially if a whole lotta people are looking for the solution for a long time.

The paper looks more like an senior undergrad “pick a subject” research assignment, spending lots of time reviewing basics before moving on to sort “hey this is neat” applications and borrowing random pictures from popular sources.


38 posted on 05/21/2016 6:44:18 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Allrighty then. Suit yourself. Stick with black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. Go with the flow.


39 posted on 05/21/2016 9:38:29 AM PDT by misanthrope (Liberalism; it is not unthinking ignorance, it is malignant evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

If dark matter is gravitationally active, why doesn’t it in-fall to stellar system, indeed, galaxy scale objects that one would expect to occasionally impact with visible objects. Yet this is not observed anywhere in the cosmos.


40 posted on 05/21/2016 12:37:41 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson