Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

I think I'll call it Relativi-stuck cosmology. On 9 December 2013 13:22, LizR wrote: > I'm working on a theory that galaxies are held together by duct tape and > superglue. > > It's proving a little tricky. Obviously the tape has to be arranged so the > dark side is facing towards us... > > >

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

I'm working on a theory that galaxies are held together by duct tape and superglue. It's proving a little tricky. Obviously the tape has to be arranged so the dark side is facing towards us... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 07 Dec 2013, at 23:58, John Mikes wrote: Telmo asked: Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed predictions? I would not be so rude - just call it an ingenious way to save our scientific face in so far developed conventional science. Then it required 'dark energy'

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 8 December 2013 11:58, John Mikes wrote: > Telmo asked: > > *Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed predictions?* > > *I would not be so rude * - just call it an ingenious way to save our > scientific face in so far developed conventional science. > Then it required 'dark

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Telmo asked: *Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed predictions?* *I would not be so rude * - just call it an ingenious way to save our scientific face in so far developed conventional science. Then it required 'dark energy' in the dark minds.And ALL had been justified by t

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:28 PM, LizR wrote: >> If you were falling back first into a Black Hole things that were behind >> you would start to look as if they were ahead of you, and as you got very >> close to the event horizon all the light from the entire external universe >> would be coming to

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

It's a fascinating concept. What a shame it can't happen in the real world. On 7 December 2013 07:42, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM, LizR wrote: > > > Ah yes I've heard that the gravity at the event horizon can be as weak >> as you like with a suitably large hole - that y

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM, LizR wrote: > Ah yes I've heard that the gravity at the event horizon can be as weak as > you like with a suitably large hole - that you might not even realise you'd > crossed it > Yes. > though surely you'd get some optical effects? > If you were falling back f

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 6 December 2013 03:00, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM, LizR wrote: > > >> The earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he called >>> them "dark stars", however it had very different properties from a modern >>> Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM, LizR wrote: >> The earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he called >> them "dark stars", however it had very different properties from a modern >> Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's Newtonian dark stars I could >> not see it, but unli

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 5 December 2013 06:58, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM, LizR wrote: > >> >> > the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite >> catapulting Einstein to fame. >> > > Back then the measurement was made right at the limit of what was possible > with 1919 technol

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM, LizR wrote: > > > the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite > catapulting Einstein to fame. > Back then the measurement was made right at the limit of what was possible with 1919 technology, since then it has been repeated many times with vastl

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 3 December 2013 19:46, meekerdb wrote: We were both a little drunk, but he was serious. I asked if the blob of > metal had been tracked in orbit? Zwicky said it was too small to track by > radar. So then I asked how they knew it entered orbit. He said they knew > because telemetry from the

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 12/2/2013 10:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 11:55, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 3 December 2013 11:55, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >>> MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by >>

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying >> gravity. >> > > Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) > > >> Dar

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is n

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Moffat even does away with renormalization. The acid test was to be the fine structure constant being time dependent. But that was not repeatable for a south hemisphere telescope whose name I forget. The two Keck Telescopes were built at Litton ITEK in Lexington, MA where I worked for a few years.

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist wrote: > MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying > gravity. > Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) > Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) > Or rather Einsteinian, I don't

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) IMO John Moffat has a much better mod-gravity theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506021.pdf wiki-Moffat: He proposes a variable speed of light

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

I should have said that by ad hoc I mean with no, or little, theoretical justification. That is, adjusting the threoy to fit the data, but with for no compelling theoretical justification. On 2 December 2013 15:42, LizR wrote: > Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories. Although it looks

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories. Although it looks like it's actually bolt-on extras to Newtonian gravitation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND On 2 December 2013 14:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'? > > -- You received th

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'? On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM, LizR wrote: > Thanks, that's an impressive list. I'd be rather surprised if "bolt-on > extras to GR" can explain all those. > > > On 2 December 2013 12:43, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> There are

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Thanks, that's an impressive list. I'd be rather surprised if "bolt-on extras to GR" can explain all those. On 2 December 2013 12:43, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Liz, > > There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From > wiki-dark matter > > >- 3.1 Galaxy rotation > c

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Liz, There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From wiki-dark matter - 3.1 Galaxy rotation curves - 3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 30 November 2013 12:04, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Thanks for the explanations. Ok, I think I now understand why dark > matter is the best hypothesis. > > It is, to date. Neverthless, you would have been quite correct had it been the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that you were trying to explai

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

> For years people have tried to modify the law of gravitation so that it is > consistent with what we see with our telescopes but it just doesn't work. If > you observe the Bullet Cluster what you see is 2 clusters colliding and the > regular matter that we can see staying in the center just as we

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

My question has nothing to do with modyfying gravity On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > Does the Bullet cluster display any of the characteristics expected of a >> Dark-Matter-less galaxy such as a spinning galaxy b

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 11/29/2013 3:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:57 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: if GR requires dark matter to work, and if we can't observe dark matter, doesn't this mean that GR is falsified? If Dark Matter really isn't

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Does the Bullet cluster display any of the characteristics expected of a > Dark-Matter-less galaxy such as a spinning galaxy blowing apart.? > For years people have tried to modify the law of gravitation so that it is consistent with what

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Does the Bullet cluster display any of the characteristics expected of a Dark-Matter-less galaxy such as a spinning galaxy blowing apart.? On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:18 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > why is it assumed that this phenomena is ca

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > why is it assumed that this phenomena is caused by some type of matter? > [...] and I'm worrying too much about the word "matter"... > Observations of the Bullet Cluster indicate that whatever this dark stuff is it has inertia and moves much

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> > if GR requires dark matter to work, and if we can't observe dark matter, >> > doesn't this mean that GR is falsified? > > > If Dark Matter really isn't there then that would indee

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > Dark matter behaves pretty convincingly like large clumps of matter that, > aside from not interacting with normal matter via non-gravitational forces, > obeys the same sort of dynamical laws as any other form of matter, see the > following for

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > if GR requires dark matter to work, and if we can't observe dark matter, > doesn't this mean that GR is falsified? If Dark Matter really isn't there then that would indeed falsify General Relativity; but the theory that Dark Matter really i

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 28 November 2013 03:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Thanks. I didn't express myself clearly. What I mean is: if GR > requires dark matter to work, and if we can't observe dark matter, > doesn't this mean that GR is falsified? It seems to predict the > existence of something that is not there... > >

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On 11/27/2013 4:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi all, Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed predictions? No. Although it is dark it can be 'seen' by gravitational lensing and by its effect on the motion of luminous matter. Brent -- You received this message because yo

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Dark matter behaves pretty convincingly like large clumps of matter that, aside from not interacting with normal matter via non-gravitational forces, obeys the same sort of dynamical laws as any other form of matter, see the following for a good quick summary (note particularly the stuff about the

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com via googlegroups.com 9:07 AM (12 minutes ago) to everything-list On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Dark Matter is required for GR to predict that galaxies do no

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Dark Matter is required for GR to predict that galaxies do not fly apart > Richard Hi Richard, Thanks. I didn't express myself clearly. What I mean is: if GR requires dark matter to work, and if we can't observe dark matter, doesn't this

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

Dark Matter is required for GR to predict that galaxies do not fly apart Richard On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi all, > > Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed predictions? > > Cheers, > Telmo. > > -- > You received this message because you are s