MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mallas



View user's profile
Reply with quote

'Maybe Newton was indeed wrong', declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University's Argelander-Institut fur Astronomie (AIfA). 'Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity'..

http://www.physorg.com/news160726282.html
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Who is this Mallas person and why does he open new threads when his enquiry seems to be covered by existing ones? And why does he use the caduceus as his symbol? And why wasn't I told? But I suppose a guarded welcome is in order.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

'Maybe Newton was indeed wrong'


I can't do physics, but wasn't that demonstrated 90 years ago?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You can't assume that round here, Grant, no.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is a problematical hypothesis that has nevertheless gained increasing ground in recent years, especially in Europe.

"Theory X might be wrong" is a problematical hypothesis? That's just vapid journalism.


According to the best cosmological models, they exist presumably in hundreds around most of the major galaxies. Up to now, however, only 30 such satellites have been observed around the Milky Way, a discrepancy in numbers which is commonly attributed to the fact that the light emitted from the majority of satellite galaxies is so faint they remain invisible.

Sounds like invisible British roundhouses.

I wonder what they mean by "the best cosmological models".


A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: 'First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution', Professor Kroupa explains, 'the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found'. More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way - the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies - lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way - like the planets revolve around the Sun.

This is unexpected!? Oh yeah, I forgot: they don't even explain the Solar System properly. We really are due a Nobel Prize.


The physicists do belief that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies.

I smell a dead red herring.


'theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter'.

No one knows what, if anything, Dark Matter is, but they can do calculations on it!?


This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. 'The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter', Manuel Metz states. Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood...

All this says is "there is a Dark Matter conundrum".


'The only solution would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation', says Pavel Kroupa. 'We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter'. Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.

Pace Grant, this is supposed to have been the presumption for a long time. I take it there is no good fit with General Relativity either, otherwise that's what this article would be about.

Why are they on about Newton rather than Einstein? Because they believe in Einstein but can't use it?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hey, better still, maybe Newton was right and the whole thing about dark matter and the universe is expanding mallarky is what's wrong.
Send private message
Mallas



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am the one that cleans your filthy kitchen!

I hope you are not using that sponge to clean my espresso machine!!!
Send private message Send e-mail
Mallas



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh sorry!

That was indeed my first post. Even though I have been a member for errrr 2 years :-)

I just like to sit and watch while I eat popcorn.

But I did not see my link posted anywhere else on the boards. To me this is a big deal, looks like mainstream is finally about to give way.

Although it looks like they're just going to move over to MOND, which is a theory that was "designed" to fit the galaxy rotation curve problem.

Either way, it is a small step toward change. I know how you just hate change Mick.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am the one that cleans your filthy kitchen!

Jesus Christo! Even the Filipino maids have got intellectual pretensions nowadays. And it's only feelthy 'cos you don't do your goddamn job!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mallas wrote:
Maybe Newton was indeed wrong

Maybe Thornhill is right. The answers can be found here. Including all those pesky anomalies that Ish continues to invoke Newton to explain. Why the planets have the spacing they do and how this is altered over time. Why planets spin. How mass can be altered thereby changing a planet's orbit and rotation. What gravity is and how the electrodynamic effect of the Sun's current sheet can make G a necessary variable.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Including all those pesky anomalies that Ish continues to invoke Newton to explain.


I ask again that you not bring up my work in this forum. You were privileged to be privy to it. Do not mention it. I do not want to discuss it here and I'm not going to debate your friends by proxy.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I ask again that you not bring up my work in this forum.


I won't have to. Everything that needs explaining can already be explained.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote



I like ....

Alfvén's plasma cosmology is an excellent theory when measured by its successful predictions. Despite this, '..the continuing resistance to Alfvén's work is based on a widely held opinion that his predictions are not derived from a plausible physical theory (i.e., a theory that conforms to the dominant paradigm). If a theory is not acceptable, it does not gain credit by making successful predictions. This would imply that the role of prediction as a means of evaluating scientific theories has been exaggerated.' - Stephen G. Brush, Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Vol. 20, No. 6, December 1992, p. 577.

What's the saying? "Science advances funeral by funeral". You have to bury the orthodox people. How fitting if they are archeologists!

It reminds me of the strange world of publishing scientiific papers. The biggest online clearing house of papers is ArXiv - it is heavily moderated, with petty and arbitrary reasons for rejecting papers, especially if it's new or unusual work. The status-quo is heavily defended. Nobody from AE or ME would be allowed in there for sure!

See more on Archive Freedom for some reports of what some people have been put through by the Gatekeepers of Orthodoxy .
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You could also read:

Seeing Red by Halton Arp
The Virtue of Heresy by Hilton Ratcliffe
Black Holes, Big Bang and Modern Physics by Stephen Crothers
Big Bang: A Critical Analysis by Ratcliffe, Eastman, Lal


All of these give an excellent insight into the failure of modern physics.

Every week there are masses of new data coming in from dozens of new and old satellites, explorers, probes and other space based platforms.
All the information on distant galaxies and stars, the solar system boundary, the sun itself and its composition and discharges are all at odds with the Standard Model and virtually every new piece of data is confirmation of the Electric Universe.

Comets aren't dirty ice, they are solid object indistinguishable from asteroids.
Jupiter is not a Gas Giant it has a solid surface.
The sun isn't a thermonuclear fusion reactor, its power is derived from an external source.

For three hundred years we have been held back by Newton and then Einstein.

The real heroes of the science of the future are Birkland, Alfvén, Jurgens, Crother, Arp and Thornhill.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm afraid that (contrary to Mick's sage advice) I have been sowing seeds of dissent in the minds of my children. Funnily enough, I regularly meet my daughter's Physics teacher outside of school, and I am not the only one telling him about the Electric Universe every week. As the local Agent of Orthodoxy via State Education (well, the poor chap is paid to be that), he is looking distinctly flustered. The English GCSE curriculum is what it is, and how can he tell his students that this is what you have to learn, even if it is bollocks? (technical expression).

Mick might say (again) that I shouldn't try to educate my own children. But failing exams never did me any harm. Well, apart from being unemployable, living in poverty, shunned by all right-thinking sensible people... err...
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group