small g big G and we need another G Gravity

Originally posted by l_e_cox
This is a good post.

This subject is getting a bit bizarre at this point. We actually have enough observational data now from enough different points in space to begin to create a map of the entire known physical universe. And what is emerging is a sort of organic, spongy structure.

I haven't followed the "dark matter" argument. It is so counter-intuitive! They are telling us we need to assume a bunch of matter exists that we have found no way to detect except for its gravitational effects which we are assuming must be present because otherwise our assumptions about how the universe hangs together don't work.

Well, the other obvious choice is that our assumptions about how the universe hangs together are incorrect!

Yes, that's the other alternative, that inter-galactic large scale gravity is not as we think it is.

However, in every single experimental test so far, classical Einsteinian General Relativity has beaten all alternatives, and is the the most theoretically attractive. For a while there was MOND, modified Newtonian Gravity, but some later results seem to have ruled it out.

So scientists now adhere to what they believe is the more likely scenario, that there is unobserved matter, some possibly from as yet-undiscovered elementary particles. Yes, it does seem pretty unlikely---but any sensible alternative appears to be even less likely.

Remember, that at one point, people observed what appeared to be lack of energy conservation in some nuclear reactions. At that point you either think your underlying theory is wrong or there are new and exotic particles---in this case, neutrinos, which were conveniently unobservable. And history proved that the "conveniently unobservable" particle was real, and later could be observed with immense effort.

reply to post by mbkennel

So scientists now adhere to what they believe is the more likely scenario, that there is unobserved matter, some possibly from as yet-undiscovered elementary particles. Yes, it does seem pretty unlikely---but any sensible alternative appears to be even less likely.

i am in favour of gravitational lensing, it can account for missing mass or displaced mass
and only requires optics and gravity.

i think einstein and his theories are proven over again to be correct for certain scales
but in the example of super clusters there is something else required

xploder