Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
No Need For A Final Theory

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on November 5, 2002 18:04:30 UTC

One that explains gravity would be sufficient for now. That theory is likely to unify the four know forces of nature and therefore can correctly be called a unification theory, just as the GUT once did. (Grand Unification Theory). I like the idea of an infinite regression of theories as it will keep physicists in work for a long time.

I also believe that the universe is infinite in space and time, but it is not static.

His comments on the inverse square law sounds like the MOND theory. Mike in his post provided a link that indicates data that refutes the MOND theory. It was however an interesting idea worth exploring. But now that has been done.

The Speed of Gravity idea is even more fundamental and not inconsistent with dark matter. Boris reaches too far. He should be content to expose a serious problem with our understanding of gravity without having to claim that a host of other physical theories and ideas are bogus. It makes his primary ideas seem bogus. DrDick had the same problem- of claiming too much.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins