Thread Closed
Page 2 of 2 1 2

food for thought re: gravity

 
Share Thread
Jul21-12, 10:20 PM   #18
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor

food for thought re: gravity

Quote by MDEarl View Post
Chalntoth,
The CMBR seems to be one of the most controversial issues in cosmology today. It was my impression that noone can explain it, and there are many theories.
Huh, what? That's just flat-out wrong. The CMB is an incredible verification of the standard model of cosmology. It remains our best measurement of the ratio of dark matter to normal matter to date, and it is next to impossible to come up with an alternative gravity theory which fits the CMB without dark matter.

As for dark energy, dark energy had little to no impact on the universe at the time the CMB was emitted, so the existence (or not) of dark energy doesn't change at all most of the behavior of the CMB. What it does change are the details of the expansion since the emission of the CMB, but this just impacts how we perceive it not how it was emitted. So the effect of the accelerated expansion on the CMB is minimal.

Most of the impact of the accelerated expansion comes in with the formation of structure later on. There's a lot of ongoing work to determine exactly how structures have formed over the history of the universe, and that research can give us quite a lot of insight into the nature of dark energy, and can also distinguish between dark energy and at least some types of modified gravity.

Quote by MDEarl View Post
I have to agree that GR is better than alternative models, but my point is that no model is "spot on".
As near as we have been able to determine experimentally so far, General Relativity is indeed spot-on. No deviation from GR has yet been detected at all.
Jul21-12, 10:21 PM   #19
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by MDEarl View Post
Sorry, I meant Chalnoth
You can edit your own posts.
Jul22-12, 07:21 AM   #20
 
Mentor
I have closed this thread.

Physics Forums rules, to which everyone agrees when they register, state
Quote by Greg Bernhardt View Post
Scientific Discussion Guidelines

Generally, in the science discussion forums we do not allow the following:
  • Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.
  • Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
  • Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
  • Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science
  • Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.

Links to web sites that fall in the categories listed above will be removed.

Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. ...

Physics Forums is not intended as an alternative to the usual professional venues for discussion and review of new ideas, e.g. personal contacts, conferences, and peer review before publication. If you have a new theory or idea, this is not the place to look for feedback on it or help in developing it.
Thread Closed
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Similar discussions for: food for thought re: gravity
Thread Forum Replies
fun food for thought Astrophysics 3
Food for thought Current Events 1
Some Food For Thought for Tinkerers... Mechanical Engineering 11
Food for Thought Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 11
Food For Thought General Discussion 16