Re: Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- From: charleskmhui@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:45:03 +0000 (UTC)
On Jun 10, 4:13pm, Rock Brentwood <markw...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:52am, charleskm...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Classical gravity is insufficient to explain dark matter and
dark energy.
We don't know that. We don't even know how much of the divergence,
say, in galactic rotation curves is explained away by GR, in contrast
to Newtonian gravity (which is what's usually used to galactic
motion).
Never mind this, neither dark matter nor dark energy are deviations
from the law of gravity, as far as anyone knows. The best that anyone
knows is that they're deviations from the laws of matter: i.e., from
expectation on what ought to go on the *right* hand side of the field
equations; not the left.
Dark matter is implied in order to maintain the equality of Einstein
field equations
Geometry = Kappa * Matter Field, one has to impose that the expected
source of gravity=ordinary matter (matter interacts with light) + dark
matter. If you do not impose dark matter then the equation is no
longer balanced.
Quote from Wikipedia:
Data from a number of lines of evidence, including galaxy rotation
curves, gravitational lensing, structure formation, and the fraction
of baryons in clusters and the cluster abundance combined with
independent evidence for the baryon density, indicate that 85-90% of
the mass in the universe does not interact with the electromagnetic
force. This "dark matter" is evident through its gravitational effect.
Several categories of dark matter have been postulated.
Baryonic dark matter - One candidate for missing dark baryonic matter
is Rydberg matter, which has spectroscopic signatures in agreement
with the unidentified infrared bands.[14]
Nonbaryonic dark matter[15] - which is divided into three different
types:
Hot dark matter - nonbaryonic particles that move
ultrarelativistically[16]
Warm dark matter - nonbaryonic particles that move relativistically
Cold dark matter - nonbaryonic particles that move non-
relativistically[17]
End quote.
So there are more deviations than just the curve fitting problem.
On top of that, we have seen emerge in recent years (months even) what
almost amounts to smoking gun evidence of dark matter -- optical
effects, themselves, seen in the space between galaxies, near
galaxies, for instance.
Again, don't ignore other evidence and divert attention to just curve
fitting problem.
There are lots of ways to explain these things before jumping hastily
to the conclusion that the law of gravity is somehow at fault; and
it's hasty to say flat-out that there's something wrong with gravity.
Thomas Kuhn has made an expalantion in his book "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" that the defense from the "scientific belt" of
the old paradigm will stay until its break down by mounting evidence.
So you're legitimate to be conservative for now.
.
- References:
- Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- From: charleskmhui
- Re: Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- From: Rock Brentwood
- Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- Prev by Date: Re: GRAVITY
- Next by Date: Re: Deterministic systems.
- Previous by thread: Re: Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- Next by thread: Re: Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
