Levity of Gravity Revisited..

[baudrunner]

RE: Gravity's Gadfly: Discover Magazine, August 2006

The reality check of Mordehai Milgrom's relatively unproductive quarter century or so of physics and cosmology research, which has snapped back at him straight in the nose like a stretched elastic band that has slipped from under the sweaty thumb of one hand and pulled subconsciously and not unplayfully by the other whilst he, deeply lost in the thought that the explanation of the fundamental nature of gravitic attraction should be explained not in any practical and realisticly knowledgable sense but rather made justifiable in the way of Albert Einstein's theory of the static Universe by way of that great genius's introduction of the cosmological constant into his relativity equations since proved false and thereby demonstrating the risk that one takes when attempting to explain a physical phenomenon using only mathematical formulae, has produced an article which in my opnion represents a null contribution to the worlds of physics and cosmology - a waste of paper.

This particular use of mathematics cannot be justified.

For one thing, the Universe cannot be summed up as being the detritus of some colossal explosion. There was never a singular "Big Bang" which produced all that we observe. Paradoxically, there was indeed a singular event that initiated the creation process, but that process is one which in quantum time is beginning at the very periphery of the Universe, which can only be observed from within. It is an accelerating process which had a beginning and which is therefore in perpetual motion. We observe it to be so. I have been thinking that this idea is the appropriate representation of a rationalisation of the "Inflation Theory".

With respect to the velocity of an orbiting body around a massive body, a discussion of the relationships that suns have with their planets in conventional Newtonian physics cannot be transferred to the colossal space that envelops a galaxy from its core to its periphery, let alone that which encompasses the entire Universe. There is the concept of localisation to consider. The physics of local (solar) space cannot be applied to the physics of galactic space, which in turn cannot be applied to the physics of the space of galactic clusters, and so on. A Theory of Everything must reconcile the relationships which allow the mutual expression of these realities as observed from within the context of our own time. The very nature of quantum mechanics suggests this very fact.

So it turns out that Einstein was right. The density of space is mutable in nature, and this mutability is the function of the concentration of masses in a localised volume of it. As it turns out then, there is no such thing as "dark matter", and that what we are talking about is the very substance of space itself.

Radical perhaps, but then, I am not the first to suggest that truth is stranger than fiction. A single mathematical constant could not possibly be applied to explain gravity. Einstein and Newton have it all over Milgrom.

[dleviwing]

The physics of local (solar) space cannot be applied to the physics of galactic space, which in turn cannot be applied to the physics of the space of galactic clusters, and so on.

True physics will apply regardless of location or conditions.
Excellent observation of Mordehai Milgrom. GOOD POST!!