Reply to point 1: The paper is merely pointing out that theoretical rotation curves NOT derived from dark matter also matches the data. In other words, (if these results hold up) an application of General Relativity alone can match the data. Be honest now - and stop being so dismissive - which explanation should be taken more seriously: an explanation involving GR alone, or an explanation involving GR plus a postulated new form of matter?
Reply to point 2: He HAS explained the rotation curves. And he has done so in terms of known physics. Dark matter does no better, and further, makes no new predictions to separate it from GR alone. In spite of major efforts to mainstream it, dark matter is still an hypothesis. If we find we don't need it, we as scientists, are obligated to drop it. This paper may merely be the starting point and in time other applications of far-field GR to galaxy formation and gravitational lensing may offer an explanation. Because the author of this paper doesn't have everything doesn't mean he has nothing. It is after all only one paper, and you have to address the claims made, not the claims not made.
I find your arrogance disturbing...
Slashdot Mirror
Reply to point 1: The paper is merely pointing out that theoretical rotation curves NOT derived from dark matter also matches the data. In other words, (if these results hold up) an application of General Relativity alone can match the data. Be honest now - and stop being so dismissive - which explanation should be taken more seriously: an explanation involving GR alone, or an explanation involving GR plus a postulated new form of matter? Reply to point 2: He HAS explained the rotation curves. And he has done so in terms of known physics. Dark matter does no better, and further, makes no new predictions to separate it from GR alone. In spite of major efforts to mainstream it, dark matter is still an hypothesis. If we find we don't need it, we as scientists, are obligated to drop it. This paper may merely be the starting point and in time other applications of far-field GR to galaxy formation and gravitational lensing may offer an explanation. Because the author of this paper doesn't have everything doesn't mean he has nothing. It is after all only one paper, and you have to address the claims made, not the claims not made. I find your arrogance disturbing...