What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

This is not the point. There is no doubt that GR without dark matter (or any other modification) is falsified.

GR together with cold dark matter is, instead, a sufficiently simple model, and it is not yet falsified (even if it has some problems, they seem yet insufficient to falsify it).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have they actually found cold dark matter? Or is it still purely hypothetical?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't they simply call it Dark gravity and kill two birds with one stone? (1/2 serious)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So how do you interpret the comment by NASA:
"You would be forced to conclude that either Earth had more mass than you had supposed and hence a stronger gravitational pull, or that the theory you had used to make the calculation was in error"

 

All scientific theories are hypothetical.

Cold dark matter in its ideal form (that means, real dark matter, which is not interacting with the usual matter at all) can be found only in the way we already have found it - by observing the gravitational field it creates. What scientists are looking for are other things - some forms of matter which interact with usual matter in a very weak way. Something similar to neutrinos, or some other neutron-like particles which would not have electric or weak charges but would somehow interact via the strong charge with a nucleon. Such "almost dark" matter has not been found. All the "dark matter" search projects I know of only look for variants of such "almost dark" matter.

Because they are scientists, that means, they don't play empty word games. ("Dark energy" is, in fact, nothing but an unfortunate word game. If one would have consistently named it "Einstein's cosmological constant", there would have been no problem with it in popular cosmology.)

GR without dark matter is falsified. To solve this problem, one can add dark matter to GR. But one can also modify GR or use some alternative theory of gravity. This is imaginable too.

 

Unadulterated bullshit.
A scientific theory is the best it gets, and is an account of what we observe and explanation for our experiments, that are continually validated and verified within their zones of applicability.
As scientific theories become further established and continue to pass tests and scrutiny, they grow more certain in their field. Examples are GR, SR, the BB, and evolution, with of course evolution.
When your own hypothetical passes scrutiny and professional peer review, it may reach that top echelon of scientific theory.

 

Thank you for your post. It clarifies the current position very well IMO.
Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, I have no preconceptions that have to be removed when assessing this problem objectively. I have no allegiance to any particular conceptualization or ideas that may prohibit aggressive exploration of a solution.
As to solution #2, currently it is unfalsifiable due to the dark matter remaining at this stage at least a purely hypothetical object.
If I did indeed have a way to solve this issue (not a solution per see) I would not be posting it here as that would be off topic and ultimately force this thread into early closure or moved to the alt theories section. Given the animosity that has been historically displayed towards me at this fora, I wouldn't be all that interested in pursuing it any how.

The topic of discussion is not about alternatives but about how a theory like GR can be proven wrong.
The need for dark matter appears to be one of those ways.

 

it can not be ruled out but it still deeply suggests that GR fails to be universally inclusive.
To me, the creative generation of a virtual object simply to maintain a theories veracity is a strategy/method of last resort. To use an imaginary object to fill in the gaps is to me something only used in preliminary theoretical work and again as a last resort. Therefore, if I was qualified to do so, which I am not, I would be more inclined to reassess all the theoretics that led to such a need, as a primary consideration before using an imaginary gap filler.
I would be looking at all the premises that are being utilized.
I would be reassessing all the core principles, at the underpinning philosophy, logic and rational, and so on before I would allow an imaginary object to dominate the solution, because once you install a virtual solution in the minds of people it is incredibly hard to change it later.
That is why I prefer #3.

 

No theory is universally inclusive and I add I don't believe any theory can be universally inclusive. We are only aware of and could anyway only possibly include the observable universe. That in itself is also beyond us at this time. Also obviously we are unable to apply our theories to all possibles situations.
The truth or reality of the universe, is not the goal of science. Science models to explain what we observe and the results of experiments. If they happen to reveal any truth or reality, then all well and good, but again, that is not the object or goal.

 

Just a quicky...
Does GR predict the existence of dark matter?
Does it make predictions about gravity with out dark matter?
What does your answer suggest about GR?

 

https://theconversation.com/how-we-...t-means-for-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-98481

extract:
Our working theory for gravity comes from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which states that gravity is a consequence of massive objects warping the very fabric of spacetime. Scientists have validated the theory with great precision in our solar system, but we haven’t been able to do the same on larger distances – until now.

Our new study, published in Science, shows that general relativity also holds true on the scale of entire galaxies. The findings strengthen the popular view in cosmology that 95% of the universe is made up of invisible substances dubbed dark matter and dark energy – ruling out several competing theories.

 

All well and good...but....
it fails to address the questions.
Does GR predict the existence of dark matter?
Does it make predictions about gravity with out dark matter?
What does your answer suggest about GR?

Given that Einstein passed away in 1955 and dark matter was first proposed in 1884 by Lord Kelvin, I am curious as to whether Einstein included the prediction of dark matter in GR... as he would have no doubt been aware of the dark matter hypothesis of the time.

 

Yes, GR predicts the existence of dark matter. It's predicted to exist based on the gravitational patterns observed, just like other astronomical bodies have been predicted in the past from their gravitational effects before direct discovery.

Yes, it makes predictions about situations with any kind of matter you wish to postulate, as long as you can write down its stress-energy tensor.

It suggests that GR predicts stuff and can be used to model what we currently observe. The need for dark matter in GR to explain certain observations does not disprove anything unless you can prove that dark matter doesn't exist, which of course you personally cannot.

 

ok...
Thanks for that...and thanks for your patience...

 

It's my pleasure, but I hope you won't simply disregard my answers next time you want to assert something, without addressing what I wrote first. Dark matter is not a fudge factor, it's an unconfirmed prediction of the theory. If you want to remain skeptical based on the fact that this prediction hasn't been confirmed by any other means besides astronomical observations, that's totally your call. However, I don't see why you're not satisfied with rejecting GR (in its present state) on the grounds that it can't describe atomic-level phenomena, why is that not a sufficient reason for you?

 

Now that is a brilliant way of putting it...!!
Thanks...