Originally posted by Soothfast
I'm skeptical of dark energy and dark matter. On the other hand I'm skeptical of a molecular biologist implying there's something wrong with the theory of special relativity. At least, the following quote seems to imply it:
[quote]Special relativity is supposed to be reciprocal, where both parties will experience the same time dilation, but all the exam ...[text shortened]... ious to something obviously wrong with special relativity that only he can see? I don't get it.
GPS functions due to general relativity not due to special relativity. Since one of the frames isn't an inertial one (actually both of them aren't), we can't say that the observers on the sattelite are equivalent to the observers on Earth and that's why his argument (I'm using this word very charitably here) is unsound.
Also this silly objection is a text book exercise to text an undergrad's understanding of GR. This biologist just got himself an F.
Originally posted by humy
So perhaps dark energy doesn't exist?
If no dark energy exists, what are the implications of that for the chances of dark matter existing?
Dark matter and dark energy are two concepts that are totally unrelated in most theoretical constructions that I know of, hence dark matter doesn't have to cease to exist just because dark energy ceases to exist.
Remember that dark energy is a way to "explain" why the universe expansion is accelerating and that dark matter is a way to "explain" supposedly missing mass.
Maybe this directional time dilation also explains the apparent gap of mass... 🙄🙄🙄
Anyhoo I'll try to get a hold of this Absolute Lorentz Transformation theory besides judging it too harshly (which I'm already doing).
Last edit: Here is the full article for who wants to read it: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0115550
An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame. In this study, it is shown that ALT is compatible with current experiments to test Lorentz invariance only if the proposed preferred reference frame is locally equivalent to the Earth-centered non-rotating inertial reference frame, with the inference that in an ALT framework, preferred reference frames are associated with centers of gravitational mass. Applying this theoretical framework to cosmological data produces a scenario of universal time contraction in the past. In this scenario, past time contraction would be associated with increased levels of blueshifted light emissions from cosmological objects when viewed from our current perspective. The observation that distant Type Ia supernovae are dimmer than predicted by linear Hubble expansion currently provides the most direct evidence for an accelerating universe. Adjusting for the effects of time contraction on a redshift–distance modulus diagram produces a linear distribution of supernovae over the full redshift spectrum that is consistent with a non-accelerating universe.