3 ms·
The paper itself cites previous attempts of the “generations of cosmologists” to use models that do take relativistic gravitational effects, including gravitoma
by johncolanduoni 6y ago
The paper itself cites previous attempts of the “generations of cosmologists” to use models that do take relativistic gravitational effects, including gravitomagnetism. The common models aren’t Newtonian because nobody has tried anything else, they’re Newtonian because the previous relativistic models didn’t end up producing different results.
The model used in this paper is less simplified and correspondingly harder to solve, but note that it is still a simplification. If this paper’s claims are borne out, it is a methodological advance, not a foray into something cosmologists have been ignoring (let alone purposely ignoring).
This article’s failure to present what the actual paper says instead of a hobby horse narrative in no way absolves you from rudely accusing someone of incompetence. If you don’t like fibbing, I’d focus on backing your opinions more solidly (crazy idea: read the introduction of the paper) before you attack others.
- ncmncm 6y agoMy answer was to Dr."(Astrophysist [sic] here)" saying "This is complete BS." If the previous relativistic models failed to produce results different from Newtonian gravity, it was, apparently, because they were wrong. Now, I don't claim to know anything about how to simplify GR solutions, but I know of people whose job it is to be able to simplify GR solutions correctly; and to be able to tell whether they have been simplified correctly. If they are getting that part of their job wrong, what reason do we have to believe they are doing the rest of their job any better? Even if simplifying the maths is too hard for most of them, some one or other might have thought to run a direct numerical simulation, without any simplification. (Maybe have an undergrad do it? Or, every undergrad?)