Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The first failure of relativity?

  1. Jan 21, 2005 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The first failure of relativity????

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501176 The first failure of relativity.
    A new cosmological model "spacial condensation".
    This paper uses SN1a data to explain a universe with no dark energy
    and no acceleration.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 21, 2005 #2
    Some astronomers have some very wierd ideas that are sometimes correct. However I balk at his assumption of a discrete time.
     
  4. Jan 21, 2005 #3

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ah! Now I see!

    The principle of astrophysics and cosmology is to apply physical laws tested in the laboratory, or at least in near solar system space and apply them to the universe at large.
    So have we tested "spatial condensation" and seen "epispace balls"?

    And why is cosmological acceleration "the first failure of relativity"?
    You could view the necessity for GR to include Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy as proofs that these things exist, or that they are modern examples of "adding epicycles" that is they are all failures of GR, but for acceleration/DE to be the first failure seems to be a bit discriminatory to me!

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2005
  5. Jan 21, 2005 #4

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes it looks like out and out crackpottery.
     
  6. Jan 21, 2005 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Pretty weird stuff, but, Leffert has been pedaling this 'revelation' for about 10 years. Looks to me like the unsubstantiated indictment of relativity was just a little CPR. If this thing catches on, will it be called spatial condensation cosmology [SCC]?
     
  7. Jan 21, 2005 #6

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Heh heh - I think those initials are already taken by another theory. But if this one is ten years old, maybe it has precedence? :wink:
     
  8. Jan 21, 2005 #7

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think 'SCC' is alreday taken :D

    edited to add: beaten to the punchline by 10 mins :eek:
     
  9. Jan 21, 2005 #8

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think Garth's been working on his theory since 1982, so there's a definite line of seniority here.
     
  10. Jan 22, 2005 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Im happy that everyone takes this paper lightly, it seemed to
    me to be one that will end up in a corner gathering dust. but
    who knows.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?