Posted on 07/09/2009 6:10:39 AM PDT by decimon
The orbit of the innermost planet, Mercury, departs from what it should be under Newton's laws. A century ago, when Einstein explained this anomaly, it confirmed his theory of gravity - the general theory of relativity.
Now an Israeli physicist predicts that a similar but far more subtle anomaly in the orbits of the planets, if detected, might prove his own theory, known as modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND. This provides an alternative theory to dark matter to explain why stars orbiting at the edge of spiral galaxies are not flung out into space. These stars are travelling at speeds too fast for conventional gravity from the mass at the heart of a spiral galaxy to hold them in their orbits, so something else must be keeping them on track.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Makes more sense than “dark matter” to the layman.
Dark matter remains a snipe hunt. Milgrom gives something to look for that is but a modification of classic physics. Continuum physics, if you will.
I’ll take “Rubber bands” for a thousand Alex.
First they “invented” dark matter. That didn’t exactly fit so they had to invent dark energy. Neither can be observed or measured. It’s all a house of cards that will tumble down soon.(No gravity pun intended)
Very Funny
Let me see the money.
And don't call me Alex.
They’re not dealing with economic intervention, “global warming” or actually creating anything, so the effects of their suppositions have ZERO effect on the rest of us.
They have to make certain educated “guesses” when dealing with this stuff, in order to move the conversation, experimentation and observation forward.
Like true scientists, these guys actuall admit it when they’re wrong and begin to work on new theories and observations.
The “climate change” guys, however, never admit it when they’re wrong and use countervailing proof to shore up their disproven theories.
Unfortunately the global warming alarmists are doing serious damage to good solid science.
“if there is gravity in this region, where there should be none, then MOND exists.”
Bad science. His reasoning is invalid.
If they detect gravity that does not prove his theory. That’s backwards reasoning. The gravity may come from another cause.
Also, the words “where there should be none” show the typical arrogance of scientists, who think that they can tell the universe what it should be doing.
I thought the stars were held together by a galactic "sky hook". Just a bigger version of the one we used to hold our tent flaps up in Scouts. Never learned to use it myself. I was always off looking for the "left-handed smoke diverter," which nobody ever remembered to pack.
My junior high chemistry teacher would have flunk my @ss for "fudging" like that. But I guess that prestigious "professors" can get away with calling it a "theory".
It’s another “Rule Of Thumb.” And my rule of thumb about rules of thumb is that rules of thumb “R-O-T” the mind.
Hey, at least they’re trying to use a scientific method in this supposed madness.
They could’ve just said, “Jesus.” and all gone home.
Shapey: Hey, Orel, what did you get for #7 on the science test?
Orel: Jesus.
By contrast, the dark matter idea requires different amounts of the stuff with a different distribution in each galaxy.
"THE STUFF"
oooooooohhh, I love it when they talk technical. 
an aside: His theory is wrong.
No mention of the effects of that 'Black Hole Thingy' (more tech stuff) at the center of the Milky Way -- and in every Galaxy.
(he needs to watch the Science Channel more often)
There's a bit of a contradiction in what you say here.
Some sort of effect has been observed and measured, which is why the idea of dark matter sprang up in the first place. The predictions of dark matter "didn't fit," i.e., the observations and measurements weren't quite right ... so they added another term.
Blaming the discrepancies on some sort of matter and energy is a pretty obvious choice for explaining phenomena related to the interaction between matter and energy....
The fact is that something is causing those observed and measured phenomena. Another fact is that we cannot see what's causing it. Either there's something out there that we cannot see, or there's a problem with the theories ... or both.
Observing and measuring a phenomena is not the same as observing and measuring a substance like matter. They observed a phenomena they couldn’t explain so they fabricated something they can’t prove as a way to explain it.
So? "Fabricating" something is precisely what they're supposed to do. It's nothing other than an example of that hypothesis/experiment thing that forms the backbone of the scientific method.
Your assertion that they "can't prove" it, however, is not particularly interesting. As it happens, there are a variety of experiments already in work, or in planning stages, designed to gather evidence on the predictions concerning dark matter theory.
For example, recent Hubble data have provided indirect evidence of its existence. It supports the hypothesis ... though of course the observations could possibly support different hypotheses as well.
This is almost certainly the solution to many of the problems that have arisen in cosmology. The major equations for gravity have known to be amenable to solutions other than the inverse-squared solution, and in particular that an inverse-linear component is viable, too. Einstein himself had considered such a solution, if I recall correctly. An increasing number of physicists are starting to investigate this, it appears. I spoke at length with one of them who works at MIT about four years ago, and there are several possible ways to validate this and discern whether it fits better than simple inverse-square. This is the first time I’ve seen a local solar system possibility though. The cosmological consequences involve that parts of the universe exist outside of the “visible” because they are too far away, not because they are “hidden, ‘dark’ matter”.
I believe that I will live to see this inverse-linear component of gravity confirmed, and the (NYSlimes consensus-LOL) “dark matter” hypothesis wiped out.
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.