Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha

[Senjutsuka]

Saw this article and thought it'd be interesting to see how this fits in with the EU theory. Its certainly refreshing to see main stream science news sites questioning some of the same fundamentals that the EU theory has put to test.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085830.htm

[flyingcloud]

“The only solution is to reject Newton’s theory. If we live in a Universe where a modified law of gravitation applies, then our observations would be explainable without dark matter.”

[nick c]

greetings Senjutsuka,
Interesting article, have you read Wal Thornhills latest article at the Holoscience website? It deals with mainstream's understanding of gravity, which is basically what is at issue in your linked article.

[url2=http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s]Newtons Electric Clockwork Solar System[/url2]


nick c

[StevenO]

“The only solution is to reject Newton’s theory. If we live in a Universe where a modified law of gravitation applies, then our observations would be explainable without dark matter.”

So instead of revising their unproven 'dark matter' theories they want to revoke Newton's law of gravity?
And they do expect others to take them seriously?

[solrey]

This article/paper, linked below, came out at the same time, and seems to totally contradict the paper cited above, by taking dark matter to a new level.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/22 ... more-29696



Apparently these folks are not aware of just how convoluted and contradictory their various hypotheses have become.

[Total Science]

Gravitation is a myth.

Any hypothesis of gravitation is theology and not science.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

[bboyer]

Recipcrocal System Theory discussion moved to FoS board here, http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=8&t=1784

[Tina]

Some very recent findings to demonstrate further that all is not well with Newtonian Theory of Gravitation:

Jerjen and colleagues have made an observation that undermines a classical Newtonian explanation involving dark matter.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 566814.htm

[seanoz]

I can't believe it is, but here is hoping.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ewton.html

A quote:

In any other field, highlighting how wrong you are is the worst thing you can do - in science, it's all about helping us find out new things. And if you know something you thought you knew is wrong, that's even better - there's something new in a place we already looked!

[StevenO]

Some very recent findings to demonstrate further that all is not well with Newtonian Theory of Gravitation:

Jerjen and colleagues have made an observation that undermines a classical Newtonian explanation involving dark matter.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 566814.htm

That is basically the same article as referred to in the start of the thread. It is another observation that shows that at galaxy scales of distances Newton's law of gravity breaks down. Does that mean proof of a theory like MOND? Not directly, since theories can only be disproven. It shows gravity has a restricted reach and/or other forces are at work.

[MGmirkin]

I'm more interested in the mutually exclusive propositions that appear to have cropped up:

(Dwarf Galaxies Orbiting The Milky Way Nix Newton)
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ewton.html

The group's calculations show that these galaxettes can't contain any dark matter - but then, observations of the orbital speed of the same shows that they MUST contain dark matter, as the extant material isn't enough to explain their velocities.

Clearly, something is wrong.

So, the galaxies CAN'T have dark matter, but they MUST have dark matter. Logically mutually exclusive propositions. You can have one or the other, but not both!

This is the quandary of contradictions that erroneous assumptions have put modern cosmology into. One wonders what new epicycle will be added to explain away this logical contradiction?

In answer to your titular question: it sounds like an admission of error.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[seanoz]

lol,

Thanks Michael, actually the R and the F are so close on the keyboard that yes - I actually meant to title the post ADMISSION OF ERROR! And did not notice my error.

You picked EXACTLY what I found so amusing about the story.

(giggling uncontrollably)

[Anaconda]

Here is a TPOD, Dwarf Galaxies Pose Big Problems, April 27, 2009, that discusses this finding.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... oblems.htm

Thought it might be interesting to have readily available to readers what the TPOD had to say about this report.

[MGmirkin]

lol,

Thanks Michael, actually the R and the F are so close on the keyboard that yes - I actually meant to title the post ADMISSION OF ERROR! And did not notice my error.

You picked EXACTLY what I found so amusing about the story.

(giggling uncontrollably)

It IS kind of funny that both ways have a specific nuanced meaning that make sense within the context presented... Heh.

Good times,
~Michael

[rcglinsk]

I found the article very annoying for two reasons. It was pro-MOND propaganda in a way. And secondly, they included no explanation of why LCDM big bang theory would preclude the presence of dark matter in dwarf galaxies. They simply assert it. Does anyone know what they are talking about, why LCDM would preclude DM in dwarf galaxies?