It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This Is What Albert Einstein Putting The Smackdown On His Critics Looks Like

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:45 AM

See that bullet-shaped golden object in the galaxy cluster? That's Albert Einstein shooting down the competing theories to his General Theory Of Relativity. (Actually, it's X-ray data showing material flowing into a galaxy cluster, as a result of a merger.) This composite image includes X-ray data from Harvard's Chandra Observatory (in gold); optical images from the Digitized Sky Survey in red, green and blue; and radio images from the Very Large Array in blue. The combined image allows scientists to study how gravity works at cosmic scales. The growth of galaxy clusters like this one, Abell 3376, is influenced by the expansion rate of the universe, which in turn is influenced by dark matter and dark energy. Two new theories claim that gravity should act differently than Albert Einstein's General Relativity predicted, at massive scales — larger than 130 million light years. According to Chandra's press release:

In the first of the new studies of gravity, an alternative theory to General Relativity called "f(R) gravity" was tested. In this theory, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not come from an exotic form of energy but from a modification of the gravitational force. Mass estimates of galaxy clusters in the local universe were compared with model predictions for f(R) gravity. Data from geometrical studies, such as supernova work, were also used. Using this comparison between theory and observation, no evidence was found that gravity is different from General Relativity on scales larger than 130 million light years. This limit corresponds to a hundred-fold improvement on the bounds of the modified gravitational force's range that can be set without using the cluster data.

In the second study, a comparison was made between X-ray observations of how rapidly galaxy clusters have grown over cosmic time to the predictions of General Relativity. Once again, data from geometrical studies such as distances to supernovas and galaxy clusters were incorporated. Nearly complete agreement was seen between observation and theory, arguing against any alternative gravity models with a different rate of growth. In particular "DGP gravity" (named after its inventors Gia Dvali, Gregory Gabadadze, and Massimo Porrati) predicts a slower rate of cluster growth than General Relativity, because gravity is weakened on large scales as it leaks into an extra dimension. Like f(R) gravity, the DGP model is designed to avoid the need for an exotic form of energy causing cosmic acceleration.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:49 AM
That article is like two idiots arguing over the correct answer to 2+2.

One of them says it's 5 and the other one says it's 3, while neither of them are right.

Abell 3376 emits massive amounts of x-rays in a halo estimated thermally to be at over 60 million degrees Kelvin.

There are no plausible explanations for this outrageous amount of heat and xray emission that encompasses the entire galaxy cluster.

Scientists say that collisions of galaxies are responsible for this, but that's utter nonsense. Collisional heating of neutral gas can not generate 60 million degree temperatures. The Sun doesn't even get that hot. That's over 20 times hotter than the hottest point of the solar corona and over 10,000 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.

They have no plausible explanation for Abell 3376. Of course, plasma cosmologists know exactly what's going on and why such intense xray emissions are observed.

Because Einsteinian relativists ignore electrical currents in space plasmas, they are limited in their explanations to using nothing but gravity and collisional shocks which are totally inadequate to explain observation. It is only when the electric force is added into the equation that a plausible explanation becomes apparent.

Here on earth we excite xrays by putting charged particles into electric fields - nature does things the same way.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:10 AM
Oh, thanks for bringing this up by the way.

Its one more bullet point I can add to my long list of arguments against Einstein's version of the universe.

new topics

log in