Here's a paper that explains his theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224
Also, I am a fan of a, perhaps complementary, approach, that uses graviton-graviton scatering: http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4005 2013/6/6 Danny Ross Lunsford <antimatte...@yahoo.com> > Someone asked why pseu-skeps are so relentless in their refusal to believe > anything new could happen. Let me try to put it in perspective. Pardon the > merely personal in what follows. > > I think we have to see this in a larger context. > > There's a guy who has been doing general relativity for many years. He's > approaching - or may have reached - emeritus status at the University of > Victoria in BC. His specialty is to investigate fundamental question of > interpretation that arise in Einstein's theory. So, he's spent a great deal > of time working in the very guts of that theory. His expertise is > unquestionable. He's published dozens of papers. He's not going to make an > elementary mistake at this late stage. > > The most salient issue in GR that distinguishes it as a field theory is > non-linearity. This means that each situation is essentially sui generis - > solutions must be had entire, and cannot be made up piecemeal from other, > more elementary solutions, as one can in say electromagnetism. (Radios and > TVs and cell repeaters work because electromagnetism is linear.) One day it > dawned on Cooperstock to model a galaxy as an entire matter distribution > and use the weakest approximation of GR that did not throw out the > non-linearity. Amazingly, no one had ever done this, in spite of it being > "right on the tip of the nose" to do so. When he solved the equations, an > amazing thing happened - the rotation curve of the galaxy turned out to be > highly non-Keplerian, and in fact he was able to easily match the observed > rotation curves to his theoretical non-linear model. > > Now, the closest analogous system to GR is not field theory (EM, weak > interaction etc). It is fluid flow - fluid dynamics. The Navier-Stokes > equations that govern the motion of water, air, etc. are also non-linear. > There is only one way to linearize them - to throw out viscosity, which > leaves you with a fluid that is almost nothing like real world fluids. > Essentially every interesting property of fluids is determined by viscosity. > > The lesson is - linearizing general relativity in order to apply computer > models via addition of piecemeal solutions is guaranteed to produce > non-physical results. Cooperstock retained the non-linearity in the weakest > possible way, and immediately explained the rotation curves of galaxies. No > need for dark matter. > > So here's your choice - you can believe in dark matter and say Cooperstock > is full of it, and convince yourself that 90+ percent of the universe > cannot be observed, or you can admit that it was a mistake to linearize GR > in the case of medium-scale smeared-out matter distributions like a galaxy > or a cluster of them, solve the equations, and explain the "anomalous" > rotation curves. Which do you think is right? > > Of course the answer is completely obvious. An elementary blunder has been > committed. But is absolutely impossible to convince anyone who will not be > convinced, that errors were made. Many people see themselves as infallible, > and incapable of error, like that sterilization satellite from Star Trek. > They are understandably reluctant to admit errors, because they may melt > down - maybe it's a good thing, because it would be hard to strap antigravs > onto all the pathoskeps and beam them into deep space! > > So where does this attitude originate? My own personal belief is that it > starts very early. We created an ultra-competitive science and math world > in which those who progress are the ones with the largest and most fragile > egos, and not those who are the deepest thinkers. The trueness or falseness > of a thing is secondary to these competitors - what is important is to win. > Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic > science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many > moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for > doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the > frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. > > The pathoskeps are simply the products of a collectivization of what I > call competitive mediocrity. The only way to always win is to have weak > opponents. And so an entire system has emerged in which there is tacit > agreement to not look hard, to ignore anomalies, to attack those who would > question things and point out real problems. The mediocre-competitive have > a tacit agreement among themselves to play a game they cannot lose. The > worst example is Robert Park - a fulminating blow-hard who actually brags > about his ignorance. > > Feynman warned us in his lectures about these people. No one listened to > him either. > > There is no point in arguing with them. They are best ignored. Somehow a > second culture of science has to be created, in which *they* are the > outsiders. > > PS - a good read - "The Twilight of the Scientific Era" by Martin > Lopez-Corredoira. > > -drl > > ----------------------------------------------- > "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
