"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"shevek" wrote in message
ups.com...

That being said, unless dark matter is found and understood we should
at least consider alternative theories of gravity that can explain the
motion of stars in galaxies.

Agreed. The point though is it is not evidence for a failure of GR.

The author's abstract does not mention any reference
to evidence of a failure of GR, but actually reads:

"While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity."

He makes some very interesting points in regard to GR in
that some GR solutions exhibit "Unphysical Properties".

He acknowledges "As a model it must not be totally wrong,
because it can quite well describe astronomical anomalies,
like the perihelion motion of Mercury, which Newton's theory
was unable to explain."

Maybe the most interesting was part 7 - On Mach's Principle
and Minkowski Space-time. Here he says:

"Overlooked is the zero point vacuum energy. With inertia
"present," and not transmitted with a long time delay as in
Thirring's solution, it can only be the vacuum energy that is
responsible for the phenomenon of inertia. As quantum
mechanics tells us this vacuum energy has a divergent 3 ?
frequency spectrum. If cut off at the Planck length it gives the
vacuum a mass density of ~ 10^95 g cm^3. It is this huge
mass density which can explain why inertia is highly isotropic"


Did you read the article Bill?
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/




--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"shevek" wrote in message
ups.com...

That being said, unless dark matter is found and understood we should
at least consider alternative theories of gravity that can explain the
motion of stars in galaxies.

Agreed. The point though is it is not evidence for a failure of GR.

The author's abstract does not mention any reference
to evidence of a failure of GR, but actually reads:

"While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity."

He makes some very interesting points in regard to GR in
that some GR solutions exhibit "Unphysical Properties".

He acknowledges "As a model it must not be totally wrong,
because it can quite well describe astronomical anomalies,
like the perihelion motion of Mercury, which Newton's theory
was unable to explain."

Maybe the most interesting was part 7 - On Mach's Principle
and Minkowski Space-time. Here he says:

"Overlooked is the zero point vacuum energy. With inertia
"present," and not transmitted with a long time delay as in
Thirring's solution, it can only be the vacuum energy that is
responsible for the phenomenon of inertia. As quantum
mechanics tells us this vacuum energy has a divergent 3 ?
frequency spectrum. If cut off at the Planck length it gives the
vacuum a mass density of ~ 10^95 g cm^3. It is this huge
mass density which can explain why inertia is highly isotropic"


Did you read the article Bill?
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/

I was responding to you silly claim that 'Dont you mean GR plus the
additional "dark matter" postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?' which is not correct.

Bill





--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au