3 ms·

I remember reading about an interesting paper that could explain some weird astrophysics by just correctly applying general relativity. The explained weirdness

I remember reading about an interesting paper that could explain some weird astrophysics by just correctly applying general relativity. The explained weirdness came from mass currents. Strangely I never hear about this when dark matter is discussed. It’s always “Newton mechanics has to be extended somehow”. Yes, why not start with the widely accepted extension called general relativity? I understand GR most likely does not explain everything, but that doesn’t mean you can take the bits and pieces it does explain and use those to underpin your pet theory… All this makes me a bit skeptical of the whole area to be honest.

ericbarrett 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_Evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_Evid... Read the "Observational evidence" section; it has a great overview of the current mainstream arguments in dark matter cosmology. (I don't link this to be snarky—it's a very good Wiki article and covers almost all the basic questions.)
nickersonm 4y ago
Are you thinking of Timescape Cosmology [0]? I think it's a great explanation for dark energy that should be further explored. A summary is that due to the large difference in gravitational gradients between in-a-galaxy and between-galaxies, it appears that intergalactic space is expanding, but in reality it's just progressing at a faster rate of time due to general relativity, thus appearing to inflate from our perspective. Typical cosmological models assume homogeneity, which IMO is a poor assumption with the lumpy universe we live in. I'm a fan of more exactly applying known models before inventing new terms! [0] http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/ http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/
- floxy 4y ago
  I'm assuming that the OP was referring to gravitomagnetism with general relativity that was making the rounds a while back: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08967-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08... ...not to be confused with the hypothesis that regular magnetism is the source of the unexplained measurements of the galactic rotation curves: https://www.nature.com/articles/360652a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/360652a0
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    It was the gravitomagnetism one, yes.

ericbarrett 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_Evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_Evid... Read the "Observational evidence" section; it has a great overview of the current mainstream arguments in dark matter cosmology. (I don't link this to be snarky—it's a very good Wiki article and covers almost all the basic questions.)

nickersonm 4y ago

Are you thinking of Timescape Cosmology [0]? I think it's a great explanation for dark energy that should be further explored. A summary is that due to the large difference in gravitational gradients between in-a-galaxy and between-galaxies, it appears that intergalactic space is expanding, but in reality it's just progressing at a faster rate of time due to general relativity, thus appearing to inflate from our perspective. Typical cosmological models assume homogeneity, which IMO is a poor assumption with the lumpy universe we live in. I'm a fan of more exactly applying known models before inventing new terms! [0] http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/ http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/

floxy 4y ago
I'm assuming that the OP was referring to gravitomagnetism with general relativity that was making the rounds a while back: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08967-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08... ...not to be confused with the hypothesis that regular magnetism is the source of the unexplained measurements of the galactic rotation curves: https://www.nature.com/articles/360652a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/360652a0
- bjornsing 4y ago
  It was the gravitomagnetism one, yes.