In the Face Book group:
The post was about dark fluid, better than dark matter.
That this story gets any traction indicates cosmologists are really reaching the limits of credibility. Isaac Newton developed an interpretation of the laws of physics that were verified many times. He defined the force of gravity as directly related to the two (positive) masses and their distance. We have been told Newton is right at earth scale but Einstein's theory of relativity does a better description of motions at stellar or galactic scales. With the theories of dark matter and dark energy that is clearly not the case. I have simple questions. Why is it dark fluid not discrete dark cubes? It would be much easier to deal with distances relative to a cube than a fluid. What assumptions are needed for defining effects from an ubiquitous fluid; when immersed in it is the net force zero? Why is space time curvature NOT involved in this new theory about the expansion of the universe implied by huge redshifts? Newton's equation implies if a mass could have a negative value (I still cannot grasp that concept) then the force would be negative if only one of the two were negative. If both are negative then the force is positive.
This dark fluid theory implies the mass in the fluid is both positive and negative. If the dark cubes had an asymmetrical arrangement then perhaps the conglomeration could be perceived as both positive and negative depending on orientation. However space time curvature is better than Newtonian physics but it seems to be ignored in this theory, unless the negative mass causes space time curvature to rise like a mountain rather than fall into a black hole. A negative mass seems to conflict with Newton and Einstein so why is this even being discussed?
At this point I wonder whether this theory will be discarded.
Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Select Cosmology to see other posts and comments to that group.