Emergent Gravity Disproved

Kdawson, could you please try to have the first clue about something that you submit?

There's no reason to be so rude. In fact, I would consider the summary pretty accurate, although maybe not the title.

This is a non-peer-reviewed article, fresh on the arXiv.

Totally irrelevant. New research typically appears on arxiv first. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

It's a followup to an earlier article which was widely criticized within the community as being full of holes, and the arguments in this article are very very weak.

I'm not a specialist in this field (my specialty is experimental nuclear physics), but the impression I get as an outsider is that this is inaccurate. Actually many people in the field seem to find Kobakhidze's arguments very strong. I think the most fair summary would be that right now, the whole thing is controversial. Verlinde never claimed that he had a worked-out theory. It's always just been a rough heuristic. Even if it's right, it's wrong. What I mean by that is that it's at best a provisional picture (historically analogous to the Bohr atom) which needs to be reworked into a real theory (analogous to quantum mechanics). Just as there were no clear criteria for judging whether the Bohr model was a good idea or a dead end in 1915, there are no clear criteria for judging whether this idea is good or a dead end in 2011.

Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/PNw5Haz7hHo/Emergent-Gravity-Disproved

prc gat gat arsenal vs liverpool fast five fast five pocahontas