Posted on 07/17/2022 12:56:29 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Newton’s Theory of Gravity explains most large-scale events fairly well. ... However, the theory is not foolproof. Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity, for example, explained data that Newton’s theory couldn’t. Scientists still use Newton’s theory because it works in the overwhelming majority of cases and has much simpler equations.
Dark matter was proposed as a way to reconcile Newtonian physics with the data. But what if, instead of reconciliation, a modified theory is needed.... Mordehai Milgrom...developed a theory of gravity (called Modified Newtonian Dynamics or “Mond” for short) in 1982 that postulates gravity functions differently when it becomes very weak, such as at the edge of disk galaxies.
His theory does not simply explain the behaviors of galaxies; it predicts them. The problem with theories is that they can explain just about anything. ...One way to separate good theories from bad ones is to see which theory makes better predictions.
Recent analysis of Mond shows that it makes significantly better predictions than standard dark matter models. What that means is that, while dark matter can explain the behavior of galaxies quite well, it has little predictive power and is, at least on this front, an inferior theory.
Only more data and debate will be able to settle the score on dark matter and Mond. However, Mond coming to be accepted as the best explanation would shatter decades of scientific consensus and make one of the more mysterious features of the universe much more normal. A modified theory may not be as sexy as dark, unseen forces, but it may just have the advantage of being better science.
(Excerpt) Read more at scitechdaily.com ...
No, no! I know that's not true!
Honest!
> “sufficiently small scales”
See a mind stretching youtube video:
Donald Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth | Lex Fridman Podcast #293
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4
I had read the guy’s book and even printed out and read the paper. Wild stuff.
No it's not about the Big Bang.
"Once you start lying, saying you know things you just suspect and cannot prove, the lies just multiply."
Nobody is lying or saying they know things they don't. Scientists have proposed ideas. That's how science works. Nobody is saying these ideas are facts. That's precisely the point.
Stars have a lithosphere?
lithosphere - the rigid outer part of the earth or planet, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.
Source for the claim please?
“No. That is the job of the legislature. Separation of powers, you know...”
LOL.
When they assume the existence of something they cannot prove, that’s not science, it’s a belief system.
I have 2 degrees in science, and almost a 3rd.
I believe in provable science, not belief. For example, everybody was all hot about string theory for 20 years or so, and it never had any real underpinning. Now, it’s out of vogue. Not that there is anything wrong with changing your views if you get new information, but they move from one supposition to the next.
Like weathermen, they never admit they were wrong.
Einstein’s equations describe a non-linear 4-dimension spacetime.
Yes, I know and your point is?
I would say they describe a 4-dimension spacetime. I don’t understand why you qualify with “non-linear”, but maybe I don’t understand it well enough.
Don't worry though. There was nothing there to take offense at, and even less in the way of damaging meaningful prose.
Cheers!
Uh-Huh
“I don’t understand why you qualify with “non-linear”, but maybe I don’t understand it well enough.”
With Newtonian gravity only the mass is counted. In General Relativity both mass and energy effect gravity.
“Yes, I know and your point is?”
Back to my original response:
“There’s been attempts to modify Newton in the past. I remember reading an article on such an attempt in Science back in the 1980s. All came to naught, “
Einstein “modified” Newton over a century ago.
“2. The laws of gravity change when we get to big structures like galaxies.”
Einstein, 1915
The deeper issue is that “laws of nature” are broken by nature all the time.
It turns out they are “laws” that humans wrote.
I am not disputing that. So, what’s your issue?
But there have been attempts to show it breaks down in nonrelativistic domains.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.nucl.53.041002.110503
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.