## Relativity and Dark Matter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nI\'m wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I\nam not attacking the theory.\n\nDoesn\'t the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity?\n\nApparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge\namounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is\nand how it works, wouldn\'t scientific principles (such as\nfalsification and Occam\'s Razor) suggest that the theory is simply\nwrong because the calculations are so inaccurate?\n\n--\nMike Helland\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I'm wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I
am not attacking the theory.

Doesn't the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity?

Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge
amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is
and how it works, wouldn't scientific principles (such as
falsification and Occam's Razor) suggest that the theory is simply
wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate?

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm


Mike Helland wrote: > > I'm wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I > am not attacking the theory. > > Doesn't the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity? > > Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge > amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is > and how it works, wouldn't scientific principles (such as > falsification and Occam's Razor) suggest that the theory is simply > wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate? > > -- > Mike Helland > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm Absolutely! Einstein was a deluded fool and you have the perfect all-encompassing body of theory. Send an e-mail to Edward Witten. Tell him he can shut off the lights and go home. http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...tro-ph/0403292 http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...tro-ph/0310723 WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...hep-ph/0404175 Dark matter candidates Carroll on what it all means. Mathematics of gravitation http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi.../gr-qc/0311039 Experimental constraints on General Relativity Nature 425 374 (2003) http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf Relativity in the GPS system Hafele-Keating Experiment Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004) http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...tro-ph/0401086 http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...tro-ph/0312071 Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...qc/0306076.pdf http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/ http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1 http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf



Uncle Al wrote: > Mike Helland wrote: > > > > I'm wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I > > am not attacking the theory. > > > > Doesn't the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity? > > > > Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge > > amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is > > and how it works, wouldn't scientific principles (such as > > falsification and Occam's Razor) suggest that the theory is simply > > wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate? > > > > -- > > Mike Helland > > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm > > Absolutely! Einstein was a deluded fool and you have the perfect > all-encompassing body of theory. Send an e-mail to Edward > Witten. Tell him he can shut off the lights and go home. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...tro-ph/0403292 > http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...tro-ph/0310723 > WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey > http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...hep-ph/0404175 > Dark matter candidates > > Carroll on what it all means. This cite is an interesting one, here is the relevant text: Given the uncomfortable tension between observational evidence for dark energy on one hand and our intuition for what seems natural in the context of the standard cosmological model on the other, there is an irresistible temptation to contemplate the possibility that we are witnessing a breakdown of the Friedmann equation of conventional general relativity (GR) rather than merely a novel source of energy. Alternatives to GR are highly constrained by tests in the solar system and in binary pulsars; however, if we are contemplating the space of all conceivable alternatives rather than examining one specific proposal, we are free to imagine theories which deviate on cosmological scales while being indistinguishable from GR in small stellar systems. Clearly, Carroll would also be comfortable with the suggestion that Dark Matter has falsified General Relativity. I haven't had time yet to look over the remaining of your 23 cites which is very informative, thank you! Though I do notice that this one: > http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20...s-1meter-3.ASP Is written by the author of this paper: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...of_gravity.asp which argues that General Relativity has been falsified, at least theoretically if not experimentally. One thing that I would like to address is the flippant remark of yours "Tell him he can shut off the lights and go home." In all actuality, if Relativity is in fact falsified empirically by Dark Matter, then it seems as if we're not nearly as close to closing up shop as many would have us believe. Far more work lies ahead of us than we previouslly imagined, not less.

## Relativity and Dark Matter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\nmhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:&lt;ad157aec.0407280714.2fbb1da8@posting.google.com&gt;...\n&gt; I\'m wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I\n&gt; am not attacking the theory.\n&gt;\n&gt; Doesn\'t the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity?\n&gt;\n&gt; Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge\n&gt; amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is\n&gt; and how it works, wouldn\'t scientific principles (such as\n&gt; falsification and Occam\'s Razor) suggest that the theory is simply\n&gt; wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate?\n\n\nYou can throw out relativity all you want and the problem won\'t really\ngo away. That\'s because the theory that seems to fail in this case is\nNewtonian gravity. So either Newton was wrong about gravity in the\ncase of large conglomerations of aggregate matter at galactic scales,\nor we do need some form of dark matter to actually make some sense of\nit all under Newton\'s original notion.\n\nRelativity is not really relevant to most of this issue, since it\'s\ncorrections are usually only necessary when we are talking about\neither very high speeds comparable to light or large concentrations of\nmatter in one location affecting the so-called curvature of spacetime.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0407280714.2fbb1da8@p...google.com>...
> I'm wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I
> am not attacking the theory.
>
> Doesn't the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity?
>
> Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge
> amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is
> and how it works, wouldn't scientific principles (such as
> falsification and Occam's Razor) suggest that the theory is simply
> wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate?

You can throw out relativity all you want and the problem won't really
go away. That's because the theory that seems to fail in this case is
Newtonian gravity. So either Newton was wrong about gravity in the
case of large conglomerations of aggregate matter at galactic scales,
or we do need some form of dark matter to actually make some sense of
it all under Newton's original notion.

Relativity is not really relevant to most of this issue, since it's
corrections are usually only necessary when we are talking about
either very high speeds comparable to light or large concentrations of
matter in one location affecting the so-called curvature of spacetime.


Mike Helland wrote in message news:ad157aec.0407280714.2fbb1da8@posting.google.com... > > > I'm wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I > am not attacking the theory. > > Doesn't the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity? The short answer is no. > Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge > amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is > and how it works, wouldn't scientific principles (such as > falsification and Occam's Razor) suggest that the theory is simply > wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate? All of the spin of the galaxy problems are based upon the observation of motion of *gas* in spiral galaxies. We cannot measure the motion of the stars directly. (There are few papers where motions of O and B stars are measured -- but these stars are not old enough to have deviated from the motion of the original gas clouds that spawned them.) Spiral galaxies are known to have electric and magnetic fields. And that gas moves in response to these EM fields quite well. When one models the motion of gas/plasma in a typical spiral galactic EM field, one obtains precisely the observed rotation curves. The only problem is that cosmologists are fixated on gravity, and simply ignore the contribution from EM fields. They simply assume (without any theoretical or observational basis) that stars move just like gas. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail}



"Mike Helland" writes: > Is written by the author of this paper: > http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...of_gravity.asp > which argues that General Relativity has been falsified, at least > theoretically if not experimentally. Only if you ignore the fact that this mystical approximate relationship he disparages is actually what happens and that acclerating charges emit light waves and jerking masses emit gravity waves. On the other hand, I've never seen anyone refute his scenario where SR predicts that relative time moves back and forth on earth because someone is moving in a circle at relativistic speed. Just take the time gap fix (making the acceleration gradual, causing a sweeping forward in time) and make it happen in reverse (causing a sweeping backward in time) and repeat. Or, even easier, two people going in opposite directions, one to the earth and the other away, will disagree as to what time it is on earth when they meet on the way $in/out$. -- Rahul Jain rjain@nyct.net Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist



I went to a college once to hear a visiting professor speak about relativity. I forget the professors name but he talked about a related subject. He put it better than anyone I've heard and I'll try and summarize what he said: There is modern physics and classical physics. For the purpose of this discussion, Classical physics is what Newton came up with... gravity, mass, momentum, etc... Modern physics is what Einstein came up with... Atoms, Nuclear reactions, time dilation, etc... Now, prior to Einstein, we knew something was wrong with physics... but we weren't sure what it was. When Einstein came along and gave us relativity, we finally understood what was wrong. We learned that classical physics was a VERY good approximation of what was going on but it wasn't EXACTLY what was going on. BUT you couldn't use Relativity to build a bridge, because you simply don't need to be that accurate. It would take too long. Modern physics didn't invalidate Classical physics, it simply was a more accurate way to measure what was going on. But in the same way you wouldn't measure a persons height in millimetres, you wouldn't use Relativity on slow moving, large objects. You use relativity on Atom sized objects and objects that are moving at (relative to each other) significant fractions of the speed of light. This is probably what is going on with relativity now. Einstein predicted that his theory would fail under certain circumstances. i.e. inside the event horizon of a blackhole... We know that relativity isn't EVERYTHING. But it IS something. Whatever theory comes next will probably fill in a few gaps, make our measurements a little more accurate. But it will be unlikely that it will invalidate relativity. Dark matter and Dark energy is probably just a glaring example of something very simple that we've overlooked. I hope this helps. "Mike Helland" wrote in message news:ad157aec.0407280714.2fbb1da8@posting.google.com... > > > I'm wondering something. Please understand that I am curious. I > am not attacking the theory. > > Doesn't the spin of the galaxy falsify relativity? > > Apparently the calculations are so far off we have to invent huge > amounts of Dark Matter. Until we figure out what this Dark Matter is > and how it works, wouldn't scientific principles (such as > falsification and Occam's Razor) suggest that the theory is simply > wrong because the calculations are so inaccurate? > > -- > Mike Helland > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm



"Mike Helland" wrote in message news:... > > This cite is an interesting one, here is the relevant text: > > > Given the uncomfortable tension between observational evidence for dark > energy on one hand and our intuition for what seems natural in the > context of the standard cosmological model on the other, there is an > irresistible temptation to contemplate the possibility that we are > witnessing a breakdown of the Friedmann equation of conventional > general relativity (GR) rather than merely a novel source of energy. > Alternatives to GR are highly constrained by tests in the solar system > and in binary pulsars; however, if we are contemplating the space of > all conceivable alternatives rather than examining one specific > proposal, we are free to imagine theories which deviate on cosmological > scales while being indistinguishable from GR in small stellar systems. > > > Clearly, Carroll would also be comfortable with the suggestion that > Dark Matter has falsified General Relativity. I haven't had time yet to > look over the remaining of your 23 cites which is very informative, > thank you! > Actually, I would not be comfortable with that suggestion, since it's not correct. In the passage you quoted, you will note the phrases "irresistible temptation" and "contemplate the possibility". Of course we don't know for sure that there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe, only that the combination of ordinary GR with the matter we directly observe doesn't fit the data. So we try everything we can, including both introducing extra matter sources and fooling around with our understanding of gravity. So far, the idea of adding new stuff seems both much easier to implement, and in better agreement with observation, than the idea of changing general relativity. Both alternatives are worth considering, but one is a clear leader at this stage. Part of the messiness of science is that it's hard to falsify individual theories; the predictions for any experiment typically involve hypotheses involving various different parts of your overall worldview, any one of which may be to blame if the result didn't agree with your prediction. Some time back, the motions of Uranus and Mercury were both in disagreement with "Newtonian gravity plus known matter sources"; in one case (Mercury) the culprit was gravity, in the other (Uranus) it was the known matter sources (we had to add Neptune). You just have to keep working until you can be sure. Sean Preposterous Universe



greywolf42 wrote: > > Spiral galaxies are known to have electric and magnetic fields. And that > gas moves in response to these EM fields quite well. When one models the > motion of gas/plasma in a typical spiral galactic EM field, one obtains > precisely the observed rotation curves. Is this right ? I'd love a second source. Regards, Boris Borcic -- What does F(Syracuse) hear, if F(Eureka) is the = in $E=mc^2 ?$ -- Cosmetic, cosmic, comic, cmc, $mc^2, E =$ Albert !



"Boris Borcic" wrote in message news:41127D37.2000404@users.ch... > greywolf42 wrote: > > > > Spiral galaxies are known to have electric and magnetic fields. And > > that gas moves in response to these EM fields quite well. When one > > models the motion of gas/plasma in a typical spiral galactic EM field, > > one obtains precisely the observed rotation curves. > > Is this right ? I'd love a second source. A series of references to observational papers: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vv....supernews.com Discussion of galactic mechanisms: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vq....supernews.com A standard, false argument supporting the common myth: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for e-mail}



Sean Carroll wrote in message news:<410ba989$1@news.sentex.net>... > "Mike Helland" wrote in message news:... > > > > This cite is an interesting one, here is the relevant text: > > > > > > Given the uncomfortable tension between observational evidence for dark > > energy on one hand and our intuition for what seems natural in the > > context of the standard cosmological model on the other, there is an > > irresistible temptation to contemplate the possibility that we are > > witnessing a breakdown of the Friedmann equation of conventional > > general relativity (GR) rather than merely a novel source of energy. > > Alternatives to GR are highly constrained by tests in the solar system > > and in binary pulsars; however, if we are contemplating the space of > > all conceivable alternatives rather than examining one specific > > proposal, we are free to imagine theories which deviate on cosmological > > scales while being indistinguishable from GR in small stellar systems. > > > > > > Clearly, Carroll would also be comfortable with the suggestion that > > Dark Matter has falsified General Relativity. I haven't had time yet to > > look over the remaining of your 23 cites which is very informative, > > thank you! > > > > Actually, I would not be comfortable with that suggestion, since it's > not correct. In the passage you quoted, you will note the phrases > "irresistible temptation" and "contemplate the possibility". Thank you for this clarification. Of course, you are right, but I think we'll both agree that theories and hypotheses are not falsified until someone is at least willing to consider the possibility, as you have. It begins somewhere. The only thing I would like to add is in response to this: > So we try everything we can, > including both introducing extra matter sources and fooling around with > our understanding of gravity. So far, the idea of adding new stuff > seems both much easier to implement, and in better agreement with > observation, than the idea of changing general relativity. Both > alternatives are worth considering, but one is a clear leader at this > stage. You give some good historical examples about Mercury and Uranus, I'm wonder what your thoughts are on whether or not, historically speaking, the ideas that have been "easier to implement" are the ones that have been of the most long-term value and whether or not the situation with General Relativity will likely be the same as it has been historically. -- Mike Helland http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm  mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:... > Sean Carroll wrote in message news:<410ba989$1@news.sentex.net>... > > > So we try everything we can, > > including both introducing extra matter sources and fooling around with > > our understanding of gravity. So far, the idea of adding new stuff > > seems both much easier to implement, and in better agreement with > > observation, than the idea of changing general relativity. Both > > alternatives are worth considering, but one is a clear leader at this > > stage. > > You give some good historical examples about Mercury and Uranus, I'm > wonder what your thoughts are on whether or not, historically > speaking, the ideas that have been "easier to implement" are the ones > that have been of the most long-term value and whether or not the > situation with General Relativity will likely be the same as it has > been historically. I haven't done any serious historical research to give a useful answer to what happens most of the time. The fact that it is hard to implement models in which GR is breaking down is an indication that those models are less likely to be true than the $GR +$ dark matter scenario. It's not a beyond-any-doubt kind of indication, but it's not worthless, either.