A New Study Appears to Stunningly Contradict Newton and Einstein's Theory of Gravity

[Judi Lynn]

Our understanding of the universe may be completely wrong.

BY DARREN ORF
PUBLISHED: AUG 14, 2023



MARK GARLICK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY//Getty Images

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, an immensely important update to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, is currently our best approximation of how the universe ticks.

But there are some holes in Einstein's theory, including some gravitational weirdness around low acceleration “wide binary” stars.

A new study claims that the behavior of these slow-moving celestial objects can’t be explained by a Newton-Einstein theory, which relies on dark matter, but could be explained with an idea known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND.

_________________________________

In 1687, English physicist Isaac Newton published his famous Law of Universal Gravitation. The idea that all objects attract in proportion to their mass was a revolutionary idea that became a huge boon for understanding the ways of the universe. But even Newton’s influential work had its limitations—specifically, it couldn’t explain gravitational phenomena such as black holes and gravitational waves. Thankfully, Albert Einstein came around in the early 20th century to help patch things up a bit with his Theory of General Relativity.

But space is a big place, and even Einsteins sometimes meet their limit. One of the most well-known of these limits is a black hole’s center, or singularity, where Einstein’s famous theory appears to break down completely. Now, a new study from scientists at South Korea’s Sejong University suggests that another limit to Newton and Einstein’s conception of gravity can be found in the orbital motions of long-period, widely separated, binary stars—also known simply as “wide binaries.” The results of this study were published this month in The Astrophysical Journal.

More:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a44776417/study-contradicts-newton-einstein-theory-gravity/

[niyad]

1. KNR and thank you for sharing this fascinating information.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Thank you, niyad. 👋

[SleeplessinSoCal]

3. Now I have a headache.

[Seiad]

4. LOL, me too. But thanks for posting this NT

[SarcasticSatyr]

5. Science reporting is littered with hyperbole ...

and this article continues that trend. I still remember the reporting of the 47-million-year-old fossil known as Ida that was going to rewrite our understanding of the evolution of humans ... hint, it didn't.

[marble falls]

6. I'm sticking with Einstein. So to speak.

[SCantiGOP]

10. I agree

Over the past few decades, it seems that every time an experiment has been devised to test one of Einstein’s theoretical predictions, he has been proven correct. He acknowledged there were gaps in his theory and some apparent contradictions, but it is hard to believe that he was coming up with these ideas a hundred years ago.

[BWdem4life]

7. "Our understanding of the universe may be completely wrong."

I have to laugh every time I see that line.

[NNadir]

8. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I generally find that the popular press reporting extraordinary claims in science generally doesn't understand science.

The theory of relativity did not disprove Newton; it extended Newton's laws to to extraordinary circumstances while simultaneously refining and extending, not disproving laws of thermodynamics.

Journalists, now more than ever, value headlines over truth.

[scipan]

9. Here's a video with a good basic explanation