Gravity - Just A Theory

[torrefaction]

Just.....wow.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sps050509.php

"Maybe Newton was indeed wrong", declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University´s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). "Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity".

Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: "The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite."

[TheFlyingOrc]

It's kinda crazy that the more we dig trying to get to a grand unifying theory the farther we get from the goal.

[Slack3r78]

I thought the breakdown of Newtonian physics at the quantum level was a pretty good indicator that there was something wrong with the model?

[National Kato]

I'm not so shocked. It is a theory, after all, and as Kroupa states he's not denying the effects, just the physics underlying those effects.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Slack3r78

I thought the breakdown of Newtonian physics at the quantum level was a pretty good indicator that there was something wrong with the model?

Well, Quantum Mechanics breaks down like everything that isn't Quantum Mechanics.

[torrefaction]

Originally Posted by National Kato

I'm not so shocked. It is a theory, after all, and as Kroupa states he's not denying the effects, just the physics underlying those effects.

I'm not shocked, I just find it incredibly interesting.

[ShivaX]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

Well, Quantum Mechanics breaks down like everything that isn't Quantum Mechanics.

Pretty much, but theres always been hints that the Theory of Gravity is wrong. For that matter I thought Einstein basically disproved Newton with his whole curvature of space thing.

[Bone]

Clearly, it's a matter of the Man (God) keepin' us down.

[OUX]

Originally Posted by ShivaX

Pretty much, but theres always been hints that the Theory of Gravity is wrong. For that matter I thought Einstein basically disproved Newton with his whole curvature of space thing.

Didn't Maxwell already disprove Newton by saying the velocity of light is a constant?

[torrefaction]

There's been no outright disproof of Netwonian theory. Just modified exceptions in certain circumstances.

This latest study, however, is pretty damning.

[Bone]

I want to see this as the turning point in our understanding of gravity, where 50 years from now anti-gravity devices are as ubiquitous as televisions.

I really have nothing more to add because the science in the article makes my head spin. I am dumber for reading it.

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Bone

Clearly, it's a matter of the Man (God) keepin' us down.

That's kind of funny.

[Chris_D]

When it comes down to it, Science is not necessarily about telling us exactly what is going on (at the micro level) but about explaining the phenomenon that we can observe and allowing us to extrapolate it to other situations. That's the reason why there is both the wave theory and particle theory to explain light, both are valid in different cases.

So as our instruments become more and more advanced and we are able to observe more and more phenomenon, then it's not surprising that sometimes the older theories need to be modified or extended to continue to hold true.

[Spacetronaut]

I think it's pretty great that Newton's theories weren't technically correct, but you can still fly to the moon using them.

[Slack3r78]

Originally Posted by Chris_D

When it comes down to it, Science is not necessarily about telling us exactly what is going on (at the micro level) but about explaining the phenomenon that we can observe and allowing us to extrapolate it to other situations. That's the reason why there is both the wave theory and particle theory to explain light, both are valid in different cases.

And therefore, our understanding of the mechanism of light is incomplete.

[Chris_D]

Originally Posted by Slack3r78

And therefore, our understanding of the mechanism of light is incomplete.

Exactly. And gravity is the same.

[Slack3r78]

fuck gravity, the mother fuckin' man trying to keep a nigga down.

[Gwinny]

I have nothing but the most basic understanding of physics. I'm interested, but I never got the chance to study it. That said - yeah, the theory of gravity. It's a theory. From the moment they started invoking "dark matter" I think a lot of people were expecting something like this to come along. "Dark matter" just sounds too much like "here be monsters". Anyway, cool. Can't wait to see what comes of this!

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Krispy

Eh, Newtonian physics has always and will always describe models of specific systems. No one has pretended it does more than the very limited macro calculations it does, so I don't see how this would be anything ground breaking.

This is a study purportedly demonstrating that the movements of stars and galaxies do not conform with Newtonian predictions. I'm not sure how much more macro you can get.

But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, "theoretical calculations tell us that the satellite [galaxies] created cannot contain any dark matter". This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. "The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter", Manuel Metz states.

There is apparently some force at work besides gravity and relativity in the gross motions of thousands of stars. This is supposedly Newton's strong suit, so it's kind of a big deal.

I think it's pretty great that Newton's theories weren't technically correct, but you can still fly to the moon using them.

Actually, you can't -- at least if you ever want to come home again. As a spacecraft rises out of our gravity well, its clocks will become desynchronized with Earth's. Manned space flight requires very precise timing and coordination, and even minor discrepancies in timekeeping are likely to lead to disaster during burns or landing. Without relativity, synchronicity could not be achieved, and neither could manned lunar landings.

[torrefaction]

Wait...Oxonian...are you saying the Moon Landing was faked?

Because that'd be epic.