Time to overhaul Newton's theory of gravitation? Galaxy cluster models cast doubt on dark matter

Modified gravity is a non-starter, but I applaud the out-of-the-box thinking.

Electric forces, which are billions of times stronger than gravity, are at work with respect to large scale galactic structure. I am happy to see others questioning dark matter. I am fairly certain that dark matter will be a point of embarrassment in years to come.

Regarding the Pioneer 10 and 11 anomalies, lets not forget similar anomalies affecting the Galileo and Ulysses probes. This 'mystery' has been explained for years by the Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe camp.

www.holoscience.c...ved.html

While they are at they need to add

Einstein E=MC^2

How many times have you heard the expression light has a speed limit or as matter reached the speed of light it attains infinite mass or there is nothing faster than the speed of light.

This is knowledge we have presently and I am sure that future knowledge by scientist will look at Einstein as a cave dweller.

Some theories should have a shelf life before spoiling.

Dark matter is a kludge. Somehow, just enough dark matter is always available in just the right place to account for the observed anomalies in gravitation in galaxies and galaxy clusters. There is no known mechanism or theory to account for the ubiquitous and precise distribution of dark matter.

It is highly likely that gravity does behave differently than our theories suppose.

Finally some sane and rational scientists out there that are willing to look at other explanations besides dark matter!!! Now if we can just get some other camps of scientists - that are stuck in thinking that is way to outdated in relation to the cosmos - will they take a look at the extremophile data and finally concede that the "goldilocks zone" is a silly requirement for life...

Could someone summarize the MOG theory and how it differs from the original? The article danced around a definition.

You can find some articles by John Moffat here:
http://arxiv.org/

An expanding cosmos having a centre of mass provides a simple explanation of the Pioneer effect—see http://www.creati...iew/5181

holoman, do we look at Newton and Galileo as cave dwellers? No-one (rational and informed) is going to look at Einstein so negatively, even if Relativity is superseded, that doesn't mean Einstein was stupid - hell, it doesn't even have to mean that Einstein was wrong.

"How many times have you heard the expression light has a speed limit or as matter reached the speed of light it attains infinite mass or there is nothing faster than the speed of light"

Mostly I hear it from cranks trying to disprove it. You do realise that 2/3 of the statements you made in that sentence are *not the result of Relativity, and are not the consensus amongst physicists.

Light has a speed limit - yes, that is one of the basis of Relativity.
Matter approaches infinite mass as it approaches light speed - not really, this is a misunderstanding of what mass is (and the phrase 'relativistic mass' has been, as far as I know at least, largely dropped by physicists).
Nothing can move faster than light - not a theoretical impossibility in Relativity.

If you are going to say something as naive as suggesting that future scientists will look at Einstein as a cavedweller, then at the very least you shouldn't be misunderstanding and misstating his theory.

The dark matter concept is required, until the MOG/MOND theory will explain the existence of gravity even without observable matter, i.e. the observations of so called "dark matter gallaxies".

http://www.jb.man...kgalaxy/
http://www.intera...=1023641

Fredrick,

You need to start thinking outside the box.

and you need to understand whats inside the box before you start trying to think outside it.


Simple fact is, Einstein was not a cavedweller - and I'm pretty sure every worthwhile physicist on Earth will agree with me on that.

Do me a favour - do a search on the internet for all the people who have called Einstein stupid or something to that effect. Then come back, and post the results: (a) how many were scientists, and (b) how many were cranks, and (c) how many were 13 year old kids who've studied it for about 15 minutes.

(if you don't want to bother, here are the correct answers...)
(a) 0%
(b) 50%
(c) 50%
- so which are you?

Fred, no one is arguing that Einstein has not made a significant contribution to the understanding of the universe. What holoman is suggesting is that future developments will drawf Einstein's contributions and make them pale in comparison. In the future, the limited understanding and insight he provided may seem archaic and childish to what we know and how it works.

This thread is starting to sound like a Geico commericial - what's wrong with living in caves?

Are there no physicist cavemen?

Just trying to take a lighter note;-) I personally have deep respect for both Newton's and Einstein's contributions... but I think most scientists would probably also concede that we don't have the whole picture yet about how the cosmos or the forces that govern it really work. Thus, there is nothing wrong with exploring other ideas, even if they contradict the work of amazing minds of the past.

earls, seriously read the comment again...

{a} While they are at they need to add Einstein E=MC^2

{b} How many times have you heard the expression light has a speed limit or as matter reached the speed of light it attains infinite mass or there is nothing faster than the speed of light.
...
{c} Some theories should have a shelf life before spoiling.

so lets see...
(a) we should get rid of E=mc^2, suggested as if we should do it now - like there is some problem with it (the problem being obviously so clear that it doesn't need explaining)

(b) a statement which is 2/3's is a flawed representation of Relativity... future scientists won't dismiss our current knowledge of these facts, because they aren't currently knowledge

(c) suggesting that Relativity is a spoilt theory - which coupled with "cavedweller" really just about sums up the very negative tone (towards Einstein and Relativity) of the comment

as pretty as your interpretation of holoman's comment was--and I'm sure it is somewhat correct--it just doesn't match up somehow.

To sum up, I'm suggesting that holoman was suggesting a little bit more than what you are suggesting he was suggesting. But honestly, even if I've got my interpretation wrong - i actually couldn't care less. My main purpose was to point out that 2/3's of that middle statement was a flawed representation of Relativity (and while I'm here, I'll also point out that there is absolutely no good reason to overhaul E=mc^2), and I've done that.

There is now mounting evidence that the only observable light bending effects on rays of light have been virtually those effects that are due to an indirect, not a direct interaction between the light rays and the gravitation. An indirect interaction involving optical refraction and a direct interaction involving a theoretical space-time model between rays of light and gravitation would conceivably involve indistinguishable observational effects. The thin plasma atmosphere of the sun represents such an indirect interaction between the gravitational field of the sun and the rays of light from the stars. There is now convincing observational evidence from Astrophysics that a direct interaction between light and gravitation is yet to be observed and that the concept of microlensing may be a failed attempt to explain the lack of observation of macrolensing. The events taking place at the site of Sagittarius A* presents convincing observational evidence that a space-time model involving a direct interaction between rays of light and gravitation simply does not take place. A lack of observational evidence of optical lensing on the light from the stellar objects rapidly moving about Sagittarius A*, is clearly revealed in the time resolved images collected since 1992. Moreover, it is clearly apparent from the Astrophysics of the rapidly moving stellar objects moving about Sagittarius A* that there can be no optical refracting media in the vicinity of the galactic core, which is believed to be a super massive black hole.

For details see: http://www.extinc...ings.htm

A paper on this subject has been published in the renown refereed journal Astronomische Nachrichten, "Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity", Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, Issue 2, 2007,pp 186 -191