3 ms·
I was almost convinced this was a spoof of "Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence." Not only is the title nearly the same, but both are essenti
by jere 14y ago
I was almost convinced this was a spoof of "Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence." Not only is the title nearly the same, but both are essentially boiling the subject down to entropy.
- Udo 14y agoAnd both are firmly within crackpot territory. > This may be why astronomers often find it difficult to explain gravitational movement’s of distant celestial bodies and have to introduce the concept of “dark matter” to help balance the equations. This is not really accurate. While it could well be that our understanding of gravity is not complete at very large scales, it's unlikely at this that dark matter and dark energy are artifacts of our models. >“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.” At this point there is no compelling evidence in favor of that theory. This would also mean that General Relativity is wrong, which is unlikely given the mountain of observational data in favor of it.
- wheels 14y agoWhen someone proposes something wrong in a field where they are validly an expert, they are simply wrong, not a crackpot. The man has 70 peer reviewed publications in theoretical physics: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page1/page1.html http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page1/page1.html
- Udo 14y agoWhether the guy is an authority or not, it's still exceedingly unlikely this hypothesis is correct. And yes, papers "proving Einstein wrong" are usually crackpot material. What that guy published in the past is not the subject here.
- faro1975 14y agoPapers that question Einstein are just science. That is the core of the scientific method - to keep refining the models, improving our knowledge and question everything. And yes, even Einstein. Those papers might turn out to be wrong, but not because they were trying to disprove Einstein. Those "scientist" who believe that Einstein's theories are infallible, cannot call themselves scientists. They are just believers in a different kind of a religion.
- Udo 14y agoI think you misunderstood my comment.
- tzs 14y agoAll of the observational data in favor of general relativity is also in favor of Verlinde's entropic gravity, since the former can be derived from the latter.
- Udo 14y agoLet's say for one moment that was true, which is anything but certain. How is that hypothesis testable?
- pygy_ 14y agoI'm not sure I understand your question. If the general relativity can be derived from another, broader theoretical framework, there's no need to test anything. It's just math. Now you have to test the predictions of the new framework, that relativity did not touch.
- madaxe 14y agoI've always found it a far more compelling argument that gravity is a side effect of time dilation due to the greater informational and interactive density brought about by matter.