This was similar to the MOND (modified Newtonian) theory of gravity, except for being relativistic, and was in agreement with anomalies such as the presently-inexplicable acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft and the usually-explained-with-dark-matter rotational behavior of galaxies.
But, it turns out to just not be right.
Yes, I know, everyone was on the edge of their seats waiting for this result, so I didn’t want to waste time being slow to post it.
I don’t have the level of education in that field to add any true worth to a discussion, but reading about physics as it pertains to space and the universe, like relativistic and theoretical physics, always seems to occupy me and send me onto long self-educating bouts of further research =].
With that said I’ve always felt there was something just… bad-mojo about dark matter/dark energy, but there they are continually being held up by further study and testing.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
I always knew Einstein was right with his theory.[/quote]
He sure didn’t.
He considered the cosmological constant to be a huge blunder, but the only way to make observations to conform with GR is to assume “dark energy” which is identical to the cosmological constant.
So if he was right, he was wrong, and vice-versa.
(Not that that has anything to do with whether GR is right: it’s just an ironic point.)
Anyway, hope springs eternal as there is still f(R) gravity.
[quote]red04 wrote:
I don’t have the level of education in that field to add any true worth to a discussion, but reading about physics as it pertains to space and the universe, like relativistic and theoretical physics, always seems to occupy me and send me onto long self-educating bouts of further research =].
With that said I’ve always felt there was something just… bad-mojo about dark matter/dark energy, but there they are continually being held up by further study and testing.[/quote]
I also (well, the “also” would apply the term to you, which I wouldn’t do, but you know what I mean) am only a dilettante at it as the mathematics are quite tough, for me anyway.
Dark matter doesn’t bother me in the slightest, simply speaking from aesthetics. But still, it’s simpler not to have it.
“Dark energy” seems to me more like hand-correcting a theory to fit facts which otherwise would disagree with it, than anything else.
There is also the Pioneer anomaly.
Something that leaves no need for dark matter, has elegant math without needing a hand-correction value, and also explains this result has I think considerable appeal.
f(R) though really is an extension of GR rather than being an entirely differing theory.
TeVeS was consistent with Pioneer’s trajectory; don’t know if any version of f(R) is.
[quote]Nards wrote:
So bottom line it for me…is there dark matter nor not?[/quote]
f(R) obviates the need for dark matter to explain the rotational movement of galaxies, but does not rule out that dark matter could exist.
TeVeS did this as well but appears to have been disproven, or at least in its usual form it has been.
With general relativity, the speeds of the stars at differing distances from the centers of galaxies just “don’t compute” if there is nothing there but normal mattter. So dark matter is required to explain this, if GR is correct.
There are also apparently other ways to get around dark matter, such as having a cosmological constant (which is rather like vacuum energy) behave differently where matter is grouped together, as in galaxies, versus where matter is sparse, as with intergalactic space.
So in other words, we do not know from theory that dark matter must exist. There are other possible explanations which have not been ruled out at this point. We also do not know from direct observation that it exists.
^^ I just want to say Bill Roberts, that my friends usually look to me as a guy who knows about science/physics stuff.
I am barely able to keep up with you. Thanks for trying to illuminate me…I think I understand now. You are beyond!
Now that the tensor-vector-scalar theory has been disproven, interplanar travel can now be accomplished through means of warded-glyph polyhexagonical rift devices and cheese! So long as the planetary chain isn’t broken out of sequence.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
Fools! Don’t you see what this means!?
Now that the tensor-vector-scalar theory has been disproven, interplanar travel can now be accomplished through means of warded-glyph polyhexagonical rift devices and cheese! So long as the planetary chain isn’t broken out of sequence.
Only a fool wouldn’t come to that conclusuion.[/quote]
LOL
Threads like this make me wish I had had studied science
