Thank you, Josh. I spent about 17 minutes reading half the Wikipedia on MOND, then watched the video. It seems that the black-box of dark-matter allowed for a theory which worked well in all applications, and it is human nature to want to have already solved the big problems.
There is naturally vast investment and inertia against a paradigm shift to an incomplete framework that is risky to experiment in, very out-of-the-box.
As you know, academia loves comfort and hates sweating bullets of really not knowing and really having to come up with something new.
I sympathize, of course, but I have been maltreated by this mindset, even though it never threatened my life or health... Others have fared and are faring worse.
Even the comfortable should directly face reality, sooner rather than later, for even their own good.
Hi Josh, For me a beautiful theory of gravity would be consistent with the otherwise universal principle that opposites attract and likes repel.
This would require some, previously unobserved/defined?, aspect of matter to be repelled by that same aspect of spacetime. Of course this is pure speculation but a little easier to contemplate if one starts from an Idealist, vs Physicalist, foundation.
A model of gravity based on the premise that spacetime, somehow, repels matter might be consistent with basic Newtonian law. An object anywhere near the center of the universe would experience nearly equal repulsion from all directions and remain either motionless or with previous velocity, as required. The moon would be attracted to earth because earth would block or absorb some repulsion on one side of the moon while the entire repulsion of spacetime would be experience by the other side of the moon accelerating it towards earth.
Objects near the outer periphery of the universe would experience more repulsion from the interior than the exterior thus accelerating away, ever faster.
Caveats to everything I've said hear, lucidly explained by Dr Becky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ8F0pfNTgM
Thank you, Josh. I spent about 17 minutes reading half the Wikipedia on MOND, then watched the video. It seems that the black-box of dark-matter allowed for a theory which worked well in all applications, and it is human nature to want to have already solved the big problems.
There is naturally vast investment and inertia against a paradigm shift to an incomplete framework that is risky to experiment in, very out-of-the-box.
As you know, academia loves comfort and hates sweating bullets of really not knowing and really having to come up with something new.
I sympathize, of course, but I have been maltreated by this mindset, even though it never threatened my life or health... Others have fared and are faring worse.
Even the comfortable should directly face reality, sooner rather than later, for even their own good.
Hi Josh, For me a beautiful theory of gravity would be consistent with the otherwise universal principle that opposites attract and likes repel.
This would require some, previously unobserved/defined?, aspect of matter to be repelled by that same aspect of spacetime. Of course this is pure speculation but a little easier to contemplate if one starts from an Idealist, vs Physicalist, foundation.
A model of gravity based on the premise that spacetime, somehow, repels matter might be consistent with basic Newtonian law. An object anywhere near the center of the universe would experience nearly equal repulsion from all directions and remain either motionless or with previous velocity, as required. The moon would be attracted to earth because earth would block or absorb some repulsion on one side of the moon while the entire repulsion of spacetime would be experience by the other side of the moon accelerating it towards earth.
Objects near the outer periphery of the universe would experience more repulsion from the interior than the exterior thus accelerating away, ever faster.
Just, fun I hope, food for thought:-)
I'm with Plato on this one. If MOND is true, then it's a beautiful proposition!