Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ
If anyone wants to consider an alternate model of gravity that does away with dark matter, read about an old professor of mine from Flinders, Professor Reg Cahill, and his process physics model. Youtube him for endless videos of him talking about the "cult of Einstein".
|
A crack pot no doubt
...to even suggest that another model is possible will bring that sort of condemnation
. And if he refers to a "cult of Einstein" he probably found it hard to find work.
It will be a long long time before another model of gravity gets up...for many reasons..first its not easy to replace a model..a new model must not only do what the old model did but needs to do it better and then some..perhaps solve problems the old model could not.... and if one hints at an eather or ether well forget it... I think an eather is taboo because that would provide one frame of reference and to do that would sink Special Relativity and as would follow General Relativity... and secondly another model may well sink the Big Bang and that wont happen unless the all the current supportors are all dead and totally new blood is sucessful in presenting a new model.
And remember the model having the Earth at the center of the Solar System is still a good scientific model even if not presenting the reality but in so far as that model can make good and reliable predictions.
Personally I would like to see a model that works with no need for a substance that we can only determine is there by our current model of gravity. We cant see it or measure it other than using our current model of gravity...
Its seems circular and I bet the discovery of something like dark matter in other models would send those other models down the shute. The predictions of GR did not tell us what we found the gallaxies doing... failed prediction means failed theory usually...like inflation to the Big Bang Dark Matter is the saviour of GR.
Even Vera Ruben said way back that she would rather see a change in the maths rather than a new particle.. I read that in an astronomy magazine but I cant find now any record of her ever having offerred such an opinion so maybe the journalist misreported her.
But there is much to support GR and so it is reasonable that it is the model we follow but it seems the establishment or the system will make it very difficult to put up a new model.
I like the idea of an eather, it is hard to know what we should call what must float around in space..all the particles and energy from everywhere going to every place...I also dont like the big bang..it says nothing about the creation of the Universe admittedly and only the evolution of the Universe but really to me it parrallels the creation required by many religions even if it actually does not specifically deal with moment of creation.
I dont like the inflation theory ( without which or a suitable replacement the Big Bang Theory would be dead in the water...Big Bang was dead in the water and it was the theory of inflation that saved it) and so find the concept impossible to accept.
But as I can not offer a better model for gravity or a better model for "the evolution of the Universe" ( nor has anyone else) and so at the present the Theory of Special Relativity and the Theory of General Relativity and as follows the Big Bang Theory are our best models and strangely I respect that.... but I do hope one day the need for dark matter is done away with I find it most uncomfortable that so much of our Universe can not be detected except by our current gravity model.
But what I think does not matter and that is probably the best news you will hear today.
Having said all that it is funny that most of my reading is about Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Fortunately not being a scientist I can think what I like even whilst others (scientists) can see that I am wrong.
Now in the interests of discussion it would be nice for someone to come on and point out how wrong I am...Steven?
alex