NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY MAKES "DARK MATTER" OBSOLETE

cool, i always figured dark matter was an artifact of an incomplete theory. even if this guy is wrong it still seems like this is the case.

>>8463330
Looks cool, but it seems utterly pointless, seeing as how it looks completely unfalsefiable.

>>8463330
That news site is embarrassingly bad

If I tell the story of Peter Rabbit, and come to the conclusion that stealing is bad, is that narrative untrue because Rabbits don't talk?

Verlinde has given talks about this theory for ages. I heard this theory in 2012. There is a reason why nobody picks this up: it doesn't do what it claims to do.

>>8463330
>2016
>still falling for the entropic gravity meme

>>8463337
If the fundamental laws of physics aren't falsifiable, what's the point of fundamental physics? Do we end up falsifying all falsifiable theories and end up with nothing then jack off? I do not at all mean to promote coming up with unfalsifiable theories, but consider the question anyway.

>>8463392
>he isn't a post-empiricist

>>8463330
This is described as a theory, not a hypothesis. In that case it should not only match what we already knew but also predicted something we did not know and then have this confirmed.

Have we reached this stage of verification already? Or is this yet another case of yet another string theorist grunting out yet another theory about a hypothesis?

Dark matter isn't really a longshot though. True we haven't seen any eclipse background stars, but it doesn't strike me vastly unlikely that there's a healthy amount of inert matter strewn about places we can't quite see. If its unlit or outshined it'd be near impossible to detect

>>8463392
t. Guy who doesn't know what falsifiable means

>>8463392
falsifiable means that there is a result we could get that would prove them wrong

so if i say that acceleration on earth g = 9.81, then that's falsifiable because if you do a perfect test and get an answer of 4.69, then you have falsified my assertion

>>8464989
if we don't teach them, they'll never realize their mistake.

>>8463330
stop posting white people as if they're scientists /pol/

Nope. This hasn't shown it can actually fit the tests of dark matter, such as explaining the dynamics of cluster collisions like the Bullet Cluster, reproducing the Cosmic Microwave background powerspectrum and explaining the timescales of galaxy formation.

There are dozens of models which have tried to unseat dark matter, not a single one has to date. The bullet cluster alone makes any modified gravity extremely ugly, it rules out simple models like simple MOND.

>>8465349

is this one any closer than other theories? more complete?

>>8465544
His model is incredibly convoluted. From what he's shown in the paper it doesn't go much further than most models, the only thing he's done that MOND can't is derive the ratio of normal matter to dark matter in relaxed galaxy clusters. That may seem like an odd statement but that is the exact language the paper uses, he's replacing dark matter but he regularly refers to it as dark matter. It is however much, much more complicated than MOND so it's not surprising it can do more. The nice thing about this over MOND however is that he claims his model can be placed in an almost standard cosmology background, MOND is famous for being useless on cosmological scales.

I don't honestly believe it's any closer, we know what the big challenges are for modified gravity and this doesn't really touch them.

File: 1477270410309.jpg (13KB, 189x189px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 189x189px

conformal gravity isn't a new theory.
in fact einstein himself thought it was probably the case.

>>8463330
whoa cool i took a class from his identical twin

>>8463330
>Dutch
Literally irrelevant

>>8463330
Is that CIA's brother?

>>8463392
the falsified theories are replaced by expanded theories. water boils at 100 degrees celsius becomes water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level etc.
did I understand your question the way you meant it?