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 ...
“But there have been attempts to show it breaks down in nonrelativistic domains.”
They are using Einstein’s equations.
Look up “neutron star”.
Tell me how they are using Einstein’s equations!
Observed April 5-11 2019
“Tell me how they are using Einstein’s equations!”
It is in the article you linked but didn’t read.
“Black holes are a myth.
1. black holes have never been observed.
2. No objects have been observed that is pulled by a black hole.
3. The bases of a black hole is based on the mass of a star which is falsely believed to be a gas. They’re not they’re a solid.”
Your grammar is almost as bad as your astronomy!
Maybe the square is right, but the distance needs an adjustment.
It may be right for shorter distances where the energy transfer is larger, but as distance increases and gravitational effects become very weak, the transfer becomes subject to quantum barriers: at a certain point, gravitational effects fall to zero or become discontinuous.
If you have a question. I will be happy to explain using my bad grammar
hmm... ok... so... I am still puzzled by the “non-linear” characterization. I am not sure what “non-linear” space would be, similarly unclear what “non-linear” spacetime would be.
“hmm... ok... so... I am still puzzled by the “non-linear” characterization. I am not sure what “non-linear” space would be, similarly unclear what “non-linear” spacetime would be.”
Linearity: f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y).
Non-Linear: f(x+y) does not equal f(x) + f(y).
In Newtonian physics, only mass is considered for gravity.
Einstein equated mass and energy and stated that since they are equivalent, energy also creates gravity.
“If you have a question. I will be happy to explain using my bad grammar”
Where did you get that a star is a solid?
” similarly unclear what “non-linear” spacetime would be.”
Observations have shown precession of planets that cannot be resolved with Newtonian physics. Einstein’s spacetime General Theory accounts for the difference.
“The way they calculate a stars mass is they measures the path of light that is bent by the gravitational pull of a nearby object.”
Measured!
“They assume the mass of the star bending the path is very low based on their mythology that stars are a gas.”
Assumed!
Which is it?
“How does the earth support it’s atmosphere? From the surface that is a solid.
The Sun’s chromosphere is 6000 miles high. Remember it must keep a Hydrostatics equilibrium with the surface. What holds it up hydrogen?”
Most of the earth’s surface is not solid ...
“How does the earth support it’s atmosphere? From the surface that is a solid.”
Why doesn’t all the atmosphere fall to the earth’s surface?
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.