←back to thread

James Webb Space Telescope finds evidence for alternate theory of gravity

(thedebrief.org)
355 points jchanimal | 2 comments | 16 Nov 24 18:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.514s | source
Show context
samsartor ◴[16 Nov 24 20:21 UTC] No.42158987[source]▶
My hangup with MOND is still general relativity. We know for a fact that gravity is _not_ Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold. Any model of gravity based on an inverse law is simply wrong.

Another comment linked to https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/, which is an excellent read. It makes the case that GR has never been tested at low accelerations, that is might be wrong. But we know for a fact MOND is wrong at high accelerations. Unless your theory can cover both, I don't see how it can be pitched as an improvement to GR.

Edit: this sounds a bit hostile. to be clear, I think modified gravity is absolutely worth researching. but it isn't a silver bullet

replies(7): >>42159034 #>>42159161 #>>42159582 #>>42159774 #>>42160543 #>>42160861 #>>42165272 #
twothreeone ◴[17 Nov 24 00:28 UTC] No.42160861[source]▶
GR says spacetime is curved by mass, right. So what's the basis for explaining the curvature of space (which can be measured, e.g., LIGO) in MOND?
replies(3): >>42162034 #>>42162873 #>>42164360 #
oneshtein ◴[17 Nov 24 08:43 UTC] No.42162873[source]▶
> GR says spacetime is curved by mass, right.

Wrong. GR says that gravitation can be modeled as acceleration.

replies(1): >>42163063 #
1. mog_dev ◴[17 Nov 24 09:32 UTC] No.42163063[source]▶
General Relativity states that mass-energy curves spacetime, and objects follow the straightest possible paths (geodesics) through this curved geometry. The equivalence principle relates gravity and acceleration, but it's not the main description of gravity in GR.
replies(1): >>42164753 #
2. oneshtein ◴[17 Nov 24 15:44 UTC] No.42164753[source]▶
Spacetime is model.