Recent content by Doctor Strange

The theory of gravity is:$$F=\frac {G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$$The second law of motion, for constant mass systems, can be reduced to the formula: $$\sum_i F_i = m a_F$$In spite of it's name, MOND is a theory of modified gravity. According to MOND, gravity acts normally here, but for reasons they can't...

3] The laws of motion are incomplete. But instead of letting the data lead you to the answer, you continue to force the data into the places you've already been. The fact that you (Cosmologists) can't even consider a change to the laws of motion is part of the problem.

This is a poor example. Neutrino detectors work almost the same way that LUX works: you put a fluid deep under the Earth and wait for some sort of radiation that indicates a weak interaction. So, yeah, neutrinos can be detected using this indirect method and, no, the same general idea has...

Is Dark Matter even disprovable at this point? Every time we fail to detect it, the theorists move the line. When we failed to find ether, we didn't turn around and imagine some new property that made it undetectable, we moved on to another theory having satisfied the principals of the...

So you would calculate the same value for ##H_0## as an observer on Earth: 67.3. The age of the universe is essentially the inverse of the Hubble constant (you can refine it with the FLRW metric, but materially, it's the inverse). So if someone traveling at 0.9c measures 67.3 for ##H_0## and...

Whatever direction and whatever speed you head off in, you are going to observe an asymmetry in the red-shift. The galaxies in front of you will appear more blue shifted, the galaxies behind will appear more red-shifted (than an observer at rest wrt the Hubble flow). So how do you calculate a...

It would help to have a concrete answer to the question I posed: You take off from Earth, accelerate to 0.9c (in any direction), then measure Hubble's constant. What value will you get?

If I put Edwin Hubble's telescope in a spaceship, then leave in any direction and accelerate to 0.9c, then take his telescope out and measure the red-shift of all the stars in a sphere around me, what value will I get for the Hubble constant?

I confused the issue by bringing the CMB rest frame into it. I corrected my comment to use the Hubble flow. If you begin moving relativistically with respect to the Hubble flow, you will measure an asymmetry in the red-shift of the galaxies around you. Everyone will be able to easily correct...

I've been working through this mental experiment and I keep on coming back to the same place. Roughly speaking, the age of the universe is the inverse of the Hubble constant. You can tweak it with FLRW, but for all intents and purposes, your clock is the inverse of the Hubble constant. If you...

If I take a spaceship and park it near the event horizon of a black hole and then measure the age of the universe by observing SNe Ia, then travel back out to normal space (no gravitational forces, at rest with respect to CMB), will the dates agree? That is, if the measured age of the universe...

You're convinced that it looks like gravity so you'll never be able to critically examine the assumptions that got you there. You're convinced that GR is the foundation for a cosmology, so you'll never be able to wrap your head around a quadratic solution.

What I'm saying is that you are convinced that there must be a placeholder because your (the cosmologists) thinking is linear. If your brain is only able to handle ##5 x = 25## when there is no scientific foundation for ##x##, you'll still search in vain for ##x## because you can't go back and...

Excellent point. However, I stand by my statement that (nearly) all cosmologists are unable to critically examine the assumptions of their models. That's the reason your model misses the observed universe by 95%. Where I come from, we call this a dismal failure, not a success. "Hey boss, our...

In every other field, we would have taken the resounding failure of LUX to find a single collision as a disproof of the "Dark Matter" theory. But because cosmology has decided to leave the scientific method behind, the faithful move the red line again. "Dark Matter" is no longer disprovable...