using a symmetric theory. I presume that a spinning star is non-symmetric.

Let's consider a different case of non-symmetry, a spiral galaxy. From what I read you can use GR or Newton's theory to solve for the dynamics of the stars in a spiral galaxy. The fact the the galaxy is not spherical does not preclude its solution whether or not the basic theory works only for spherical symmetry.

In the case of the spiral galaxy, a comparison of the resulting solution to observed star dynamics has forced physicists to infer the existence of dark matter.

Now when you use the same theory on sperically symmetric galaxies and compare the theoretical star dynamics with what is observed, in turns out that dark matter in not needed.

So why is there dark matter in spiral galaxies but not spherical galaxies???

Cahill's answer is that both Newton's and Einstein's theory does not contain non-symmatric terms. According to him and others ,if you put in the terms, the star dynamics in spiral galaxies can be predicted without inferring dark matter.

Now it may turn out that the non-symmetric terms in the basic equation is negligible for spinning stars, and the Kerr solution is correct.

But my suggestion to you, since you underestand theory and I do not, that you actually read the works of Cahill and Moffat before pontificating. It's obvious to me that you have not read them.

J

• Nobody is interested in cahill's work for a good reason. - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 21:43 UTC
  • Put up or shut up - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:46 UTC
    • A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 19:57 UTC
    • Stuff it... - bruce - June 6, 2004 - 01:23 UTC
      • Why are you not answering him - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 01:33 UTC
        • I did answer him... - bruce - June 6, 2004 - 09:01 UTC