I’ll buy the idea that there ain’t alternate universes. But no black holes? That’s tough to swallow.
Gravity could not possibly hold galaxies together. The distance/mass relationships between our system and Alpha Centauri are typical for the Milky Way. If you scale our system so that Pluto's orbit is a yard or so wide, then the sun would be about the diameter of a human hair, Earth would be an inch or so away from the Sun, and Alpha Centauri would be more than four miles off in the distance.
What you're asking gravity to do is hold two dust motes together from four miles away; that's clearly impossible.
Scientists who ought to know better claim that having "dark matter(TM)" be 95% of the mass of the universe fixes the problem; it doesn't. All that does is reduce the four mile distance to a tenth of a mile. Gravity can't hold two dust motes together from a tenth of a mile away either, that's the distance of two of those highway markers...
That's aside from the question of why you're not having to vacuum the stuff off your carpet five times a day if it's 95% of the universe of course.
All of these other fairytale things you read about including dark energy, black holes, string theory, infinite numbers of universes and what not are the same sort of BS derived from viewing gravity as the only meaningful force in the universe and in the case of string theory and multiple universe, there is also a question of wanting to provide darwinists and evolosers with the number of universes they think they need for their BS ideology to work since they know what the odds are in the one universe we actually have.
There's also the question of the "big bang(TM)" which is also garbage science based on nothing really more than a misinterpretation of cosmic redshift, and you can do google searches on 'Halton Arp' or check out www.cosmologystatement.org for that part of it.
I’ll buy the idea that there ain’t alternate universes. But no black holes? That’s tough to swallow.I agree. Most theories regarding alternate universes aren't very testable... but the astronomical data regarding black holes (as well as the theory predicting them) is pretty well established, isn't it?
What do you think is the motivation behind the "no black holes" crowd?
Dupa. I just saw varmintman’s reply to you after I posted my question to you. Ok, so he provided an answer of sorts, but not really regarding the motivation, which is a question I still have to you. What do you think the motivation here is.
Varmintman, you mention the orbit of Pluto, the relative small size of the sun and then throw in the need to have dark matter to make it all work.
That is high confusion on your part. Dark matter is “needed” to explain the motions of galaxies, not the orbit of Pluto.
The orbit of Pluto is completely within Newton’s description of gravity and has no “need” for dark matter or anything else outside of Newton’s equations, including Einstein. You don’t need Einstein to explain any of the orbits in our solar system (although relativistic effects are there, of course, just too small to make much of a difference to Pluto).
You’re being very emotional with you’re wow-look-how-far-away-the-sun-is conjecture, when there’s no emotion involved and none needed. Forget about trying to wow your audience with distances. The fact is, Newton and Kepler’s equations have been used to CORRECTLY predict and find astronomical bodies before they were seen and there was no need for dark matter to do that and there is no other explanation for those predictions other than this one:
Newton and Kepler’s equations are sound. Gravity holds.
So what are you going on about and what is your actual motivation to try to unseat one of the most long-standing of sciences?
I’m just curious here. I’m not a scientist and my bread and butter doesn’t depend on any of this but I’m trying to figure out what motivates the no-black-hole crowd (one of whom is in my family and even so I still can’t figure it out).