Gravity theory dispenses with dark matter

[DesertFox]

Maggie McKee
NewScientist.com
25 Jan 06


A modified theory of gravity that incorporates quantum effects can explain a trio of puzzling astronomical observations – including the wayward motion of the Pioneer spacecraft in our solar system, new studies claim.

The work appears to rule out the need to invoke dark matter or another alternative gravity theory called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). But other experts caution it has yet to pass the most crucial test – how to account for the afterglow of the big bang.

Astronomers realised in the 1970s that the gravity of visible matter alone was not enough to prevent the fast-moving stars and gas in spiral galaxies from flying out into space. They attributed the extra pull to a mysterious substance called dark matter, which is now thought to outweigh normal matter in the universe by 6 to 1.

But researchers still do not know what dark matter actually is, and some have come up with new theories of gravity to explain the galaxy observations. MOND, for example, holds that there are two forms of gravity.

More (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8631)

[pinqy]

See, these scientists keep changing things. Gravity is just a THEORY and has never been proven. They even invent "gravitrons" which have never been observed. We need to teach our children all the alternatives, including Intelligent Falling.

[Charity]

We need to teach our children all the alternatives, including Intelligent <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
:-)

[sunsettommy]

See, these scientists keep changing things. Gravity is just a THEORY and has never been proven. They even invent "gravitrons" which have never been observed. We need to teach our children all the alternatives, including Intelligent Falling.

Sometimes they invent things too,such as Dark Matter.

Gravity is actually a proven reality.The problem is that there is more to learn about gravity than is known.

[DoctorDoom]

What I'm seeing is a desperate effort to find a rationale for a cyclic universe, engaging in an endless series of bangs and collapses, thus avoiding the uncomfortable scientific (or more to the point, theological) ramifications of a universe that originated from nothing.

[DeclinetoState]

But other experts caution it has yet to pass the most crucial test – how to account for the afterglow of the big bang.


Isn't that when you smoke a cigarette?