New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

Actually his ideas were published but were rejected by you .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are being obtuse again river or just intellectually dishonest..........
His ideas were rejected by the scientific community as a whole.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where they though ? Hanns won a Noble Prize pad .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before this thread completely train-wrecks, here's what looks to be a bucket of cold water on Verlinde's otherwise promising not-so-new theory:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425220/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon/
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
The argument and experimental setup also described and illustrated pp9-11 here: http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf

A word search using 'Kobakhidze' in Verlinde's latest v2: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
comes up blank. Which may or may not suggest he is ducking a fatal issue. A theory that jumps through 9 hoops out of 10 doesn't get a score of9/10, but 0.
I'm sure this post will motivate a furious search for a rebuttal to Kobakhidze's rebuttal. Which might even be valid. Let's see.

 

Not be me old friend!

I just post interesting articles for all to read, including yourself...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gravity was considered random emergent consequence of matter ?

 

He didn't win the Nobel prize for Plasma/Electric universe theory river......

 

No for
Magnetohydrodynamics

 

Is that supposed to impress me?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fred Hoyle was also another great astronomer/scientist, not withstanding his opposition to the BB and pushing the Steady State.
Electric/Plasma theory was demolished and rebuffed fairly and squarely via proper professionals and the scientific method......
You need to accept that before you kick the bucket!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually Hanns theories were to complicated to be included in Einstein's theories .

 

No, his hypothesis was debunked and discarded because it was not supported by evidence....simple as that.

 

So Nobel Prize is given out with no support of evidence ?

 

Just another example of your silleness river, as I have told you
The Nobel prize was not given for the Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical.
His peers rejected that nonsense.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfvén_wave
"In plasma physics, an Alfvén wave, named after Hannes Alfvén, is a type of magnetohydrodynamicwave in which ions oscillate in response to a restoring force provided by an effective tension on the magnetic field lines

 

Never mentioned anything about Electric Universe or Plasma Universe .

The Plasma Universe is slowly gaining acceptence.

 

Can you give any link, citation or reference supporting that?

 

Nope

 

Read this though

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-plasma...eriously-by-astro-physicists-and-cosmologists

 

"In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime..."

I'm sorry but this is popscience pseudoscience woo that flatly contradicts general relativity.

 

Yes, exactly what I have been telling you...Thanks.