re: The case against dark matter

So here's what I don't get.

If gravity isn't pulling on matter within its "reach" and is simply distorting space time and objects are following that distorted spacetime "road," how exactly does escape velocity apply here? At a certain velocity does the spacetime distortion no longer have an effect on that matter?

ETA: And since you don't necessarily have to reach an escape velocity to actually escape a gravitational field, doesn't that mean that by achieving a certain energy state (whether that be through rocket propellant or a jump drive like in Sci Fi movies) that you're essentially creating an amount of mass due to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence (E = mc2) that is able to "counteract" the gravitational force of a large mass such as Earth?

What are your thoughts on this?
NASA link for newly discovered galaxy

First thought was that they just got their observations wrong. If that’s not the case it’s one of those weird doors that opened that means there’s still tons out there we don’t understand, galaxy formation being one of them much less the ideathat they are missing a lot of something and we don’t have any idea what that something is.

quote:

---

it’s just the speed is fast enough to counter the falling (acceleration of gravity) towards the planet

---

Wouldn't that imply that gravity is quite literally pulling it towards the greater mass?

Is the idea that space time is being distorted and the idea that there is a gravitational field that pulls objects towards it contradictory?


ETA: What I'm saying is that I see Newton's Universal Gravitational theory as more correct than general relativity and that probably makes me a dumbass.

quote:

---

ETA: What I'm saying is that I see Newton's Universal Gravitational theory as more correct than general relativity and that probably makes me a dumbass.

---

Newton made models on what he saw happening but it never addressed the mechanics of "why" like Einstein did.

quote:

---

Newton made models on what he saw happening but it never addressed the mechanics of "why" like Einstein did.

---

True. Newton's law states: The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. This simple description is still used to calculate the relationship between masses.

Einstein took the next step in defining gravity by relating it to spacetime and its effect on it.

quote:

---

never addressed the mechanics of "why" like Einstein did

---

Most of your posts are just BS but this one takes the cake. You are trying too hard with this.

I've studied quantum mechanics and general relativity and even worked directly with the physicist who developed the Brans-Dicke theory.

The method this guy is using won't work. He's basically saying he's going to create a theory on a guess from observing a single phenomenon and try to fit that theory into other observations instead of letting the observations dictate the theory. And he admits that what he's seeing could fall under "dark energy".

Meh.

I guess I just take issue with you saying something as wrong as Newton not trying to determine "why" two bodies are "attracted"... that was literally his life's work. If he had the tools and time, he would have reached the theory of relativity eventually which is mostly only a step beyond where Newton had taken us: light and energy itself.