Physicist proposes new theory of gravity, arguig that gravity doesn't exist

[claudius]

Original paper at [0], some corrections/comments at [1,2]. [3] argues that the proposed new ideas and the classical (Newtonian, If I understood this correctly) concept of gravity are actually identical, given suitable identifications of various entities.

[0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5858

[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3876

[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1015

[davidweir]

Useful to note that parent's Ref. 0 has been peer-reviewed and is published in JHEP, a respectable high energy physics journal.

Sadly, articles like those linked often do not check the authors' credentials or whether the research being summarised has been successfully published somewhere rather than just put on the arXiv.

The BBC (and possibly others) go further, asking rival or independent researchers to comment on new work; this approach (check for peer review and also seeking critical comment from third parties) should be the expected standard in scientific news reporting for a lay audience.

DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029

[tokenadult]

Submission from a lousy, link-baiting source with no informative details. This doesn't really belong on Hacker News, as this is not news, nor does it "gratify curiosity."

[jd]

See also this (much better) interview with the same guy: http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

[jere]

I was almost convinced this was a spoof of "Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence." Not only is the title nearly the same, but both are essentially boiling the subject down to entropy.

[Udo]

And both are firmly within crackpot territory.

> This may be why astronomers often find it difficult to explain gravitational movement’s of distant celestial bodies and have to introduce the concept of “dark matter” to help balance the equations.

This is not really accurate. While it could well be that our understanding of gravity is not complete at very large scales, it's unlikely at this that dark matter and dark energy are artifacts of our models.

>“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”

At this point there is no compelling evidence in favor of that theory. This would also mean that General Relativity is wrong, which is unlikely given the mountain of observational data in favor of it.

[verroq]

Epoch Times is known as the paper associated with the Falun Gong movement, casting doubt on its integrity and credibility.

[seanmcdirmid]

I'm sure you can find stronger evidence than "associated with Falun Gong movement." Outside of the PRC, they are considered just another belief system and hardly considered a cult.

[Gonzih]

So gravity doesn't exist or gravity is more complex than we thought? Can someone explain it? Thanks.

[Ygg2]

Put succinitly, it is idea is that gravity is not a fundamental force, but emerging property of a more fundamental force and if I'm not mistaken its entropy.

[RockofStrength]

He's saying that gravity is an emergent property, just like temperature or the marble in a stack of envelopes.

[shin_lao]

A lot of hand waving. Not so many concrete results.

[zeroexzeroone]

I must say this is a tasteless comment:

Gravity must exist...my crap falls in the toilet every time! Amazing!