exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You listed 4 hypotheses.
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
You claim: "There are no infinities or singularities in nature."
Proof of claim: ____________?
Why don't you show us a logical contradiction which necessarily follows from negating the claim?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Because such a request, as every request of proofs of something about nature, is nonsensical.
Feel free to believe there may be infinities in nature. Your choice. Why should I care more about you than about religious believers into Gods with infinite powers?
Then you do not understand science - the nature of the physical world, in science, is determined by observation, either of phenomena themselves, or of experimental perturbations of them
Again, you do not understand science - it is not about "belief", it is about evidence and logic that leads from it to a conclusion
If you can't prove that infinities and singularities don't exist in nature, and you can't demonstrate a logical paradox within Relativity based on such concepts, then you can't logically claim that Relativity is disproven on that basis.
Why are gravitational anomalies considered as anomalies? ( hypothetical or other wise)
The missing mass problem.
The article by NASA is actually a good read... and shows just how "lost in space" we are...embarrassingly so...
I would add, (**)"or the laws of physics that support the theories, as you understood them, were incomplete or incorrect."
so they are observing outer stars orbiting galactic center at the same velocity as inner ones!
How does current physical law explain that?
"A twirling, spinning figure skater would loose her arms over this"
[159] Most of the mass in the universe is missing. Or is it merely hidden in some exotic, as yet undetectable form? No one is sure which. One thing is sure, though. The problem of the missing mass has gotten to the point where it is more than just a problem. It is an embarrassment, an obstacle to understanding such things as the structure of galaxies, the evolution of clusters of galaxies, and the ultimate fate of the universe.
A simple analogy illustrates the problem. Suppose the rockets inserting a spacecraft into an orbit around Earth were to burn too long, providing too much thrust. Then the gravitational pull of Earth would be overcome, and the spacecraft would shoot out of orbit into interplanetary space. Fortunately for astronauts, scientists can calculate quite accurately how much thrust is needed for a given orbit, so this does not happen. But suppose, through a computer error, the rockets burned too long and the spacecraft was accelerated to a speed twice as fast as the proper orbital speed-yet the spacecraft stayed in orbit! You would be forced to conclude that either Earth had more mass than you had supposed and hence a stronger gravitational pull, or that the theory you had used to make the calculation was in error.(**)
This is about the situation astrophysicists find themselves in today. Not in trying to understand the motion of planets around the Sun-the theory works fine there-but in trying to understand the motions of stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies, or of galaxies and gas in clusters of galaxies.
src: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-466/ch22.htmA simple analogy illustrates the problem. Suppose the rockets inserting a spacecraft into an orbit around Earth were to burn too long, providing too much thrust. Then the gravitational pull of Earth would be overcome, and the spacecraft would shoot out of orbit into interplanetary space. Fortunately for astronauts, scientists can calculate quite accurately how much thrust is needed for a given orbit, so this does not happen. But suppose, through a computer error, the rockets burned too long and the spacecraft was accelerated to a speed twice as fast as the proper orbital speed-yet the spacecraft stayed in orbit! You would be forced to conclude that either Earth had more mass than you had supposed and hence a stronger gravitational pull, or that the theory you had used to make the calculation was in error.(**)
This is about the situation astrophysicists find themselves in today. Not in trying to understand the motion of planets around the Sun-the theory works fine there-but in trying to understand the motions of stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies, or of galaxies and gas in clusters of galaxies.
The article by NASA is actually a good read... and shows just how "lost in space" we are...embarrassingly so...
I would add, (**)"or the laws of physics that support the theories, as you understood them, were incomplete or incorrect."
It follows, then, that the speed of rotation of the stars and gas should decline as one moves from the inner to the outer regions of galaxies.
Much to the surprise and consternation of astronomers, this is not what is observed. As radio and optical observations have extended the velocity measurements for the stars and gas to the outer regions of spiral galaxies, they have found that the stars and gas clouds are moving at the same speed as the ones closer in!
Much to the surprise and consternation of astronomers, this is not what is observed. As radio and optical observations have extended the velocity measurements for the stars and gas to the outer regions of spiral galaxies, they have found that the stars and gas clouds are moving at the same speed as the ones closer in!
so they are observing outer stars orbiting galactic center at the same velocity as inner ones!
How does current physical law explain that?
"A twirling, spinning figure skater would loose her arms over this"
Last edited:
That's why the existence of dark matter is postulated, and it's "dark" because it doesn't appear to give off any visible light or interact with normal matter except via gravity. It's only a hypothesis at this point, but it does fit the data.
Of course it would!
There is another hypothesis that fits the data and that is that the theoretics that leads to such an extraordinary result of 84% mass missing is actually flawed, incomplete and or non- inclusive.
To consider this though one has to accept the notion that science may have it wrong.
Personally I don't for a second believe that anything is missing, except our ability to find appropriate alternative theoretics that do account for empirical observation.
So the search continues....
No, the "alternative hypothesis" as you state it doesn't fit the data, because it can be matched to any data whatsoever, it predicts nothing and anything. Dark matter models precisely fit the data and can be used to make accurate predictions about gravitational behaviour, so that's why they're considered useful. If dark matter actually exists as postulated, we would expect to observe precisely what has been observed up until the present with existing technology, so there's no reason to discount the model.
I have no problem with the idea of Relativity being incomplete and imperfect; we already know that to be the case, because it can't describe gravity and atomic phenomena together in arbitrary settings. But there are good reasons to consider or demand alternate theories, and there are bad ones; not having a complete picture of how something works is a bad reason to throw away a theory that works perfectly in countless other situations and can be readily tweaked to account for the unexplained phenomena in question.
I like that explanation... well stated IMO
Does it occur to you that if you take all that math that relates to dark matter and integrate that with existing math/law/theories, that leads to the missing mass to begin with that you would have a more complete theory with out the need for invisible matter?
Of course it is not as simple as that, but the idea remains....
Abstraction:
The nature of creativity is to imagine an imaginary solution ( dark matter), find that it works, then incorporate that solution with out the need for imaginary dark matter. The imaginary Dark matter being a way to an end so to speak...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Of course, that's not the way it works. The same math that makes all the predictions that we know to hold is the same math that gives us singularities and infinities and it's the same math that requires dark matter and dark energy and of course they are place holders until we know exactly what they are.
Why even bring up a suggestion that we need to "integrate" the math that brings us dark matter with the math that brings us everything else. If that could be done, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not that no one has been "creative" enough to think that one up.
How do you know that it isn't being done? Of course it is being attempted.
I was responding to CptBork in discussing the hypothesis of dark matter and how the math behind dark matter can be used to improve existing theory to the point that dark matter is no longer necessary to fill the gaps.
Just like you can't predict the gravity of the solar system without mapping out the locations and masses of the planets, it seems that dark matter has to be mapped in detail in order to make accurate testable predictions. There's no substitute theory to date which produces adequate results and pretends that dark matter doesn't exist, and no reason to demand a substitute until it's shown that dark matter can't be real.
When science can provide dark matter in a bottle and not just theoretics I might change my mind. Until then it appears to be nothing but theoretical fudge.
If you weren't fully justified in remaining skeptical, billions of dollars wouldn't be spent in ongoing experiments trying to do precisely what you're asking for. The lack of success to date is certainly unsettling.
Agrees... very unsettling....
Something to consider, though just to expand the point I am trying to make, is that other than dark matter there are other significant gravitational anomalies that need to be included in the theoretical picture. The solution to the missing mass may actually solve the other issues as well...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What anomalies are you talking about? Do you have any examples in mind?
Perhaps read my post to James R and if still confused ask him.
They are the anomalies you referred to as hypothesis.
Last edited: