"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

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

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

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
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.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Dont you mean GR plus the additional "dark matter"
postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?

No. A simple cosmological model based on reasonable assumptions shows
the
acceleration should be slowing yet is observed to be accelerating. This
either shows GR or some of the other assumptions that goes into the
model is
false. The assumption that has been found wanting is not GR but that
matter
exists that may be 'exotic' by which is meant it violates the strong
energy
condition - one of the assumptions that goes into the model. Dark
matter is
supposed to do just that - violate the strong energy condition.

I thought that was dark energy? Or are you proposing the two are one
in the same? They are usually sorted such that the dark matter is what
holds galaxies and clusters together (and causes increased lensing) and
the dark energy is what causes cosmological inflation.

I have not noticed a particular distinction made between the two - they
seem to often be grouped together. But matter is the term normally used
to describe matter (which exotic matter is a form of) - not energy. In
the early universe at the time of inflation before matter had formed
energy is probably a better term (for the false vacuum) - but at the
current epoch matter would seem to fit better.

In order to distinguish between dark matter which does not violate the
strong energy condition I now see it is important to use the term dark
energy when describing such states of matter. I will stick to that
terminology from now on to avoid any confusion.

Thanks
Bill



Indeed if
inflation is correct the early universe violated the strong energy
condition. One can not claim GR has been refuted when other assumptions
can
also explain it. Although the strong energy condition is looked upon as
suspect still other assumptions (not GR) could be at fault.


The observation of an accelerating "universe" also relies on numerous
assumptions/calculations which could be partially wrong, such as the
distance/redshift relation, the calibration of standard candles,
assumed consistancy of certain supernova types, etc. I agree with you
it isn't evidence of a failure of GR.

Yep.


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.

Thanks
Bill


Cheers - shevek