Comments on: Escape from the clutches of the dark sector?

By: Maybe it’s not dark matter, just gravity leaking in « Later On

Maybe it’s not dark matter, just gravity leaking in « Later On — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:28:27 +0000

[...] UPDATE: That last link references a paper that has serious problems. So we do need dark matter—or some other explanation—after all. [...]

By: Dark matter is still needed « Later On

Dark matter is still needed « Later On — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:22:11 +0000

[...] I have linked to this post previously, which suggests that general relativity explains the rotation of the galaxies, with no need for hypothesized dark matter. But that paper has serious problems, so one can safely ignore it. So we’re left with dark matter—or with even stranger ideas. [...]

By: Danger, Phil Anderson | Cosmic Variance

Danger, Phil Anderson | Cosmic Variance — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:54:52 +0000

[...] Well, not so much “radical” as “incorrect.” Anderson doesn’t mention the fact that the universe is accelerating, which is curious, since that’s the best evidence for dark energy. His offhanded proposal that density fluctuations are somehow responsible is similar in spirit to the original proposal of Kolb, Matarrese, Notari, and Riotto, that ultra-large-scale inhomogeneities could mimic the effects of dark energy. Everyone now agrees that this idea doesn’t work, although the authors are trying again with small-scale fluctuations. While that hasn’t been cleanly ruled out, it’s a long shot at best; most folks agree that we either need dark energy, or somehow to modify gravity. [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:35:32 +0000

background i have in

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:34:47 +0000

Eagerly awaiting the response of the Dark Forces

or simply an expert in GR. It seemed to refute the non-physical argument, but I had trouble following all the math, as the only background in GR is what I taught myself from Sean’s book this summer not to mention the fact that I am drained from lack of sleep and finals.

By: Dissident

Dissident — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:51:00 +0000

…and here’s the latest from Cooperstock & Tieu: no “thin sheet of infinite density”.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512048

Eagerly awaiting the response of the Dark Forces…

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:14:27 +0000

Thomas, how does the conclusion – dark matter is not a perfect fluid lead to the conclusion that dark matter doesn’t exist?

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:50:41 +0000

Here are some interesting papers by M. Reuter and H. Weyer: M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Running Newton Constant, Improved Gravitational Actions, and Galaxy Rotation Curves, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124028 (2004). M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Quantum gravity at astrophysical distances?, JCAP 0412, 001 (2004). M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Do we Observe Quantum Gravity Effects at Galactic Scales?

By: Dissident

Dissident — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:49:17 +0000

Far from being an expert, I’d still expect those who claim such lofty status to focus on assumption #2: “in the limit of no rotation halo spacetime is Minkowski spacetime”. Why this should be more “likely” than assumption #4 (perfect fluid) is not obvious, at least to me.

But for the time being, I’ll be doing my usual excited-jumping-around-routine. Thanks for pointing out this paper – I had (again!) completely missed it!

By: Thomas Larsson

Thomas Larsson — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:53:40 +0000

Another paper has appeared:

astro-ph/0511241

Let me quote the entire section 4, Conclusion:

“Dark matter does not exist.”

Do the experts have an opinion about this paper?