Posted on 02/08/2017 8:35:56 AM PST by fishtank
Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?
by John G. Hartnett
Published: 7 February 2017 (GMT+10)
Occasionally we read in the popular press, especially online, that someone has come up with a new theory of gravity. Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?
The standard ΛCDM big bang cosmology is derived from an application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory. But when that was applied to the universe as a whole, two problems developed for the secular model. One is the need to add in dark energy (or the cosmological constant, Λ (Lambda), to Einstein’s field equations) and the other is the need for a significant amount of invisible cold dark matter (CDM).
On the scale of galaxies and even clusters of galaxies Newtonian physics is used as it is the low gravity limit of general relativity. But without the addition of dark matter the resulting theory, using the known density of visible matter in galaxies (see Figure 1) and clusters, does not match observations. But for more than 40 years now dark matter has been sought in various lab experiments with consistently negative results. This has developed into what is called the dark matter crisis.1
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Now his theory gets it from the other side. Sometimes you can't win...
Whoever wrote this doesn’t even understand what science is.
I read an article suggesting gravity was an emergent force and that would explain what scientists refer to as dark matter not long ago. I’m not a rocket scientist or physics phd but it made more sense to me than current theory.
First, because science is a process not a body of knowledge, and anything can be questioned and possibly improved.
Second, because our theories of gravity and quantum mechanics, while both appearing to be completely accurate, do not overlap. So it is thought that there must be another description of the universe that while consistent with what we understand now, will encompass both gravity and everything else.
"...application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory."
What the heck is a "non-biblical boundary condition" is physics? I've never heard of such a scientific term.
Einstein was said to have spent the last years of his life looking for God in math and physics. He thought math was God’s language I think.
They have mass. The vaccum of space not so much.
I’m pretty sure it’s established that there are huge electromagnetic interactions right here in our solar system.
They are doing neither, they are just different shapes. The shape of a galaxy isn't fixed forever. They evolve over time and can affected by interactions with other galaxies. But a spiral isn't spiraling inward and a globular isn't exploding outward. In both cases all the material is orbiting the center.
Said by who? Einstein tried to find a unified theory to describe both gravity and sub-atomic physics. That's not "god" in any normal sense.
I think it's all emergent, and that's they key.
Prior to the "Big Bang", there was the "Big Dinner" and a couple of drinks.
That is how you know you have reached the pinnacle of your field; when you invent a theory whose main premise is that you won’t find any evidence for it
I think there is more evidence that gravity pushes than there is that it pulls.
i knew the responses from usual secularists and those masquerading as old earth creationist types...the typical ‘science is always refining itself’, ‘science doesnt deal in absolutes’, and the underpinnings of course, ‘those of you who dont follow this dictatorial discourse, simply dont understand science’....blah blah blah...
as i always say, more hand-waving and just-so stories from the big bangers....
One can only go back through causes of causes so far when doing research. Ultimately either there was an original uncaused cause to all reality, or we have an infinite chain of caused states of reality that as a whole is uncaused. The latter is not possible on my view--so like Gottfried Liebniz I take the view there was something that caused everything else that was not itself caused, and understand this to be God, since every set of things one wants to consider in nature seems to be contigent on external causes, so nothing inside nature would suffice.
But the point of the big bang is not to go back to where the energy came from....the Jesuit Priest Geoges Lemaitre who first proposed the theory (calling it a "primordial atom") was just trying to make sense of the implications of Einsteins theories on the universe and predicted it had expanded from a point. Presumably, he thought this was the creative act of God, because, obviously any other explanation would be silly and contrived. And indeed, it took decades for atheists to give up fighting the theory and start contriving their ridiculous alternatives.
But Lemaitre was only doing science, not theology in this case. And that is limited to figuring out how nature works rather than why it is here.
I avoid The Big Bang Theory, NFL games, and all other perverted TV shows.
For some reason scientists and non-scientists alike believe that that there has to be a single unifying Theory of Everything (TOE). This goes back to before Plato and is even reflected in the modern belief in the “one true God” rather than accepting the Greek concept of multiple deities or the Zoroastrian notion of dual deities, one good, one evil. Scientists feel the need to reconcile the classical theory of gravitation and its force with the other three forces defined by quantum field theory (QFT). Several interesting lines of investigation are under way including a holographic model that treats gravity as an emergent behavior of lower dimensional quantum processes. I look forward to their ongoing research. What I am virtually certain of is that whatever creation story scientists come up with, it will be the result of natural and not supernatural causes. There is simply no need to posit the existence of supernatural causes to explain the observed data. The mistake that scientists make is to think there is only one objective truth that everyone must accept rather than individual perspectives. People who must live and eventually die (truth) don’t want truth, they want meaning.
From the article:
“Moreover, it was noted even earlier that:
“[a]n alternative possibility … can explain the observations as a fluke of cosmological geometry. It avoids invoking dark energy as an ad hoc cause but at the price of throwing out the Copernican principle: roughly speaking, it puts the Earth, or at least our galaxy, back at the centre of the observable universe.”11
The Copernican principle is, of course, an arbitrary condition imposed on the interpretation of cosmological observations in order to avoid the possibility that the Earth has a unique location in the universe, something one might conclude from reading Genesis.”
Good question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.