Could dark matter not matter?

Dec 05, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today
Rotation curves of the Andromeda Galaxy. Actual rotational velocities of the outer stars are the white line, while velocities that would be expected from the estimated mass of the visible matter in the galaxy are the red line. Hence, we conclude that over 80% of the galaxy's mass must be dark matter. Credit: Queens Uni.

You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits.

The issue can be appreciated by considering the Keplerian motion of the planets in our Solar System. Mercury orbits the Sun at an of 48 kilometers a second – while Neptune orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 5 kilometers a second. In the Solar System, a planet’s proximity to the substantial mass of the Sun is a function of its orbital velocity. So, hypothetically, if the Sun’s mass was reduced somehow, Neptune’s existing orbital velocity would move it outwards from its current orbit – potentially flinging it off into interstellar space if the change was significant enough.

The physics of the Milky Way Galaxy is different from the Solar System, since its mass is distributed more evenly across the galactic disk, rather than 99% of its mass being concentrated centrally – the way it is in the Solar System.

Nonetheless, as this past Universe Today article explains, if we assume a similar relationship between the cumulative mass of the Milky Way and the orbital velocity of its outer stars, we must acknowledge that the visible objects within the Milky Way only have 10-20% of the mass that is required to contain the orbital velocity of stars in its outer disk. So we conclude that the rest of that galactic mass must be dark (invisible) matter.

This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to dark matter at all.

Left image: the rotation curve of spiral galaxy NGC 3198 showing the actual velocities of its outer stars (plotted points), then the velocities that would be expected given the mass of visible matter in its disk - overlaid by the assumed contribution of the mass of a dark matter halo. Right image: Carati's theoretical curve calculated from the effect of faraway matter and its remarkable fit to observed values from NGC 3198.

Conceptually the idea makes little sense. Positioning gravitationally significant outside of the orbit of stars might draw them out into wider orbits, but it’s difficult to see why this would add to their orbital velocity. Drawing an object into a wider orbit should result in it taking longer to orbit the galaxy since it will have more circumference to cover. What we generally see in spiral galaxies is that the outer stars orbit the galaxy within much the same time period as more inward stars.

But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit.

With skeptical firmly in place, the following conclusions might be drawn from this finding:

• There are so many galaxies out there that it’s not hard to find four galaxies that fit the math;

• The math has been retro-fitted to match already observed data;

• The math just doesn’t work; or

• While the author’s interpretation of the data may be up for discussion, the math really does work.

The math draws on principles established in the Einstein field equations, which is problematic as the field equations are based on the cosmological principle, which assumes that the effect of faraway matter is negligible – or at least that it evens out at a large scale.

Perplexingly, Carati’s paper also notes two further examples where the math can also fit with declining rotational velocities in their outer stars. This is achieved by switching the sign of one of the formulae components (which can be + or -). Thus, on the one hand the effect of faraway matter is to induce a positive pressure that contains the rapid rotation of stars, preventing them from flying off – and on the other hand, it can induce a negative pressure to encourage an atypical decay in a galaxy’s rotation curve.

As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true – it probably isn’t true. All comments welcome.

Explore further: Mixing in star-forming clouds explains why sibling stars look alike

More information: Carati Gravitational effects of the faraway matter on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Missing Milky Way dark matter

Nov 09, 2010

Although dark matter is inherently difficult to observe, an understanding of its properties (even if not its nature) allows astronomers to predict where its effects should be felt. The current understanding ...

Astronomy without a telescope - black hole evolution

Nov 29, 2010

While only observable by inference, the existence of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the centre of most – if not all – galaxies remains a compelling theory supported by a range of indirect observational ...

Orphan supernovae?

Nov 14, 2011

For some years now astronomers have been scratching their heads over the appearance of supernovae that detonate out in the middle of nowhere – rather than within a host galaxy.

SLoWPoKES

May 16, 2011

The Sloan Low-mass Wide Pairs of Kinematically Equivalent Stars (SLoWPoKES) catalog was recently announced, containing 1,342 common proper motion pairs (i.e. binaries) – which are all low mass stars in the ...

3D galaxies -- coming straight on for you

Jun 29, 2011

As we've recently learned, the ATLAS3D project was able to study 260 individual galaxies and do some very amazing things. By imaging in both red and blue shift, astronomers were able to take stellar measurements and give ...

Twisted ring of gas orbits galactic center

Jun 01, 2011

The Herschel Space Observatory scanned the center of the galaxy in far-infrared and found a cool (in all senses of the word) twisting ring of rapidly orbiting gas clouds. The ring is estimated to have dimensions ...

Recommended for you

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

Aug 29, 2014

It may seem like magic, but astronomers have worked out a scheme that will allow them to detect and measure particles ten times smaller than the width of a human hair, even at many light-years distance.  ...

Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

Aug 28, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted an eruption of dust around a young star, possibly the result of a smashup between large asteroids. This type of collision can eventually lead to the ...

User comments : 102

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 05, 2011
yall got this all wrong idjits.

I already explained this without Dark Matter, using nothing but Newton's law of gravity and the concept of an extended, rotating disk.

1) Quit using the entire mass of the galaxy as a point object on which everything else orbits. That's simply not what is represented in reality and is freaking absurd.

Overall, Mass is proportional to volume.

If you have a disk, mass of any given concentric ring (or orbital) is proportional to the square of the RADIUS.

In Newton's law, gravity is inversely proportional to DISTANCE, which is the same as the RADIUS of an orbital.

So if M = pi*d*r^2, where d is density of matter in the galaxy, then Newton's law says:

A = G* Pi *d *r^2 / r^2

The r^2 components cancel.

In any stable orbit, A will be proportional to velocity.

Since d is roughly constant (except in the densest part of the hub,) this curve, when plotted, gives EXACTLY the same thing as the observed data, WITHOUT Dark Matter.
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
I still don't get it about dark matter/dark energy, massless vs mass.

If I took a cubic inch of lead, in the span of a fraction of a second, yocto, zepto, etc..how many of the particles that comprise the mass of the lead would actually exist ? And in the next slice of time, how many of those would still be here ?

Is this the big question ? That mass is somewhat of an illusion ? It's confusing because there seem to be no definitive line differentiating virtual particles from real ones.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
Frankly, I didn't understand this model at all. The gravity field of far away matter is both very weak, both very homogeneously distributed, just because the diameter of galaxies is negligible with compare to the mutual distance of galaxies. How the hell it could explain the observed fact, the rotational curves of stars at the centre of galaxy fulfils the Newton's inertial law, whereas the stars at the perimeter don't? We are dealing with high inhomogeneity in behaviour here, whereas the gravity field of distant galaxies is very homogeneous, not to say about its weakness?

Maybe this model is actually genial - but it seems as a complete, utter nonsense for me in this moment.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2011
We really have to start from scratch when trying to construct a new framework. The process of thinking BIG involves questioning all of your assumptions. And logic is absolutely vital to this process. If something does not make sense, then ditch it and start over.

For instance, Dirac stated in 1938 in a paper titled "Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons" Proc. Roy. Soc., vol. 168, p. 148, that the aim of the point-source model for the electron was "not so much to get a model of the electron as to get a simple scheme of equations which can be used to calculate all the results that can be obtained from experiment."

He continues by stating that the model is actually a mathematical model and is "not based on a model conforming to current physical ideas."

Scrap the point-source model for these particles, and let's start the real work of building a geometry for our particles. It is absolutely mindless to assume that point-sources can spin, guys.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
The mystery of gravity is a product of the mistakes embedded within our theories. In order to move forward, and finally get a strong hold on what we see in space, we have to be prepared to ditch theories which aren't working.

Without a strong force, the atom cannot hold itself together. So, part of our mission in reconstructing science to fit the observations must involve answering this question of what keeps the atom stable. We cannot figure out gravity even as we ignore this vital question.

The particle-wave duality is a very intriguing clue for the underlying geometry of the electron, as it's not particularly difficult to imagine a physical geometry which might appear at times as a wave. A spinning ring -- or toroid -- would do the job, as was noted by A.L. Parson in a 1915 publication, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Colection, vol. 65, No. 11, Publication No. 2371, pp 1-80 (Nov. 29, 1915)
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Electron scattering experiments for which Robert Hofstadter received the Nobel Prize for in 1961 have shown that neutrons, protons and other elementary particles have a measurable finite size, an internal charge distribution (indicative of internal structure), and elastically deform in interactions. In other words, these are not point sources.

Now, the elastic deformation is really crucial here, because elastic deformation can surely be induced by high velocities, as a sort of internal electrodynamic friction between matter's electrons and protons, and the ambient magnetic field.

In 1978, TG Barnes published "Alternatives to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity," Physics of the Future, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp. 88-94 (1983), where he claimed that all the known results predicted by SR, i.e. the change in mass of elementary particles with velocity, the change in fields of elementary particles with velocity, and the change in decay half-life with velocity...
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
It is absolutely mindless to assume that point-sources can spin, guys.

Yes, mainstream physics is full of logical controversies based on formal math, but this model just adds another controversy instead of removing existing ones.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
...could be predicted exactly from classical electrodynamics of finite-size elastically deformable elementary particles. It appears that relativity becomes completely unnecessary once a physical geometry is proposed for the fundamental particles.

Quoting ...

"The second event occurred in 1990 when Bergman published the first successful physical model for the electron, proton and other elementary particles. Bergman's model depicts the electron and the proton as a thin ring of charge circulating at the speed of light. The charge in the ring is repulsive to itself due to the Coulomb interaction. This force is exactly balanced by the magnetic pinch effect due to the current in the ring. The balance of electric Coulomb and magnetic Lorentz forces determines R, the radius of the ring. Bergman speculates that the electric and magnetic forces on the ring must in general be unequal with the electrical repulsive forces predominating at large radii...
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
...Bergman suggests that there are special values of the radius for which the electric and magnetic forces are equal, but no explicit proof of this has been given. Furthermore, Bergman notes that the dynamic radius of an electron closely bound to a proton in the neutron would be significantly smaller than the radius of an electron weakly bound to a distant proton in the hydrogen atom.

Three features of the spinning charged ring model of electrons and protons are especially important to the structure of the atom. The dominating characteristics provided by the ring model are first, the physical size of each particle; second, the magnetic dipole exhibited by each particle; and third, the property that a charged spinning ring, surrounded by static electric and magnetic fields, does not radiate, so that no loss of energy occurs for either a bound or unbound configuration." ("A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei" by Joseph Lucas)
Decimatus
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
The fact that all the stars are spinning around the galaxy at roughly the same rate can lead to the conclusion that the stars are not tethered to a central mass.

They don't fit orbital gravitational mechanics because they are not orbiting anything.

They are merely following the nearby stars, which are following their nearby stars, and so on.

The galazy is more like an uncooked pizza being tossed in the air than the current center of gravity model. The dough stays together because that is how it sticks. The dough on the outside doesn't much care about the dough in the middle.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
They are merely following the nearby stars, which are following their nearby stars, and so on

It still doesn't explain, why the stars at the center aren't following the nearby stars, while the stars at the perimeter do... Actually, just at the center of galaxy the density of stars is highest, so that their cohesion should be highest there too. But the real situation is exactly the opposite.
The galaxy is more like an uncooked pizza being tossed in the air
It just doesn't behave so. Even the uncooked pizza is rotating as the single body and its axial speed is uniform along its radius.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
With a more functional definition of what's happening at the micro-scale, only at this point should we ask: What is gravity?

If you have a physical geometry for the electron which can be deformed, then we already have the mechanism for gravity right there: With an all-electric nucleus for the atom, gravity is a propagation of this elastic deformation of the electrons. It propagates as a dipolar force: the trait is passed from one electron to the next at superluminal speeds. There is no restriction of a speed of light when no matter is actually traveling. Gravity can be superluminal because all of the electrons are the carriers, all at once. They are merely passing this physical distortion along a chain of dipoles.

All of these ideas can plug perfectly into a plasma-based universe, as well as the amazing work of Gerald Pollack. Pollack has similarly shown that it is dipolar chains of water molecules which explain how living organisms function.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Stars are moving radially outward in our own galaxy.

http://www.physor...ays.html

And galactic rotation is assumed from red/blue-shift observations. Actual galactic rotation from star displacement in distant galaxies has not been confirmed optically. Such a measurement would take far longer than our lifetimes?
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
@HannesAlfven: I know, there is a number of alternative theories, but it doesn't explain, why the model above discussed should work. I could start with promotion of my dense aether theory too, but I perceive it a meaningless, until I find some common points with the model above presented. Until you find such a connection, you're simply spamming nonsense here. There exists thousands of models, similar to Plasma Universe and they're clearly of-topic. So why just the Plasma Universe should an exception?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 05, 2011
Physorg and its readers ignore -- at their own peril -- the formation of a new, second electrical framework. We can now do away with theories which are so complex that nobody actually understands them. And we can now accommodate the entirety of observations, from the micro to the macro-scales, using nothing but an electrical view of the universe. Through a process of interdisciplinary synthesis, we can extend this new framework to its logical conclusion and fill all of the gaps in the process. Many people have imagined that the Electric Universe is somehow anti-science. But, scientists and theorists at the highest levels are in fact paying very close attention to what is transpiring here. Those laypeople who are putting in the extra effort to understand all of these developments are getting the upper leg here, as it takes a long time to fully digest all of these materials. Those who are ignoring it all will come to regret that decision.
Decimatus
4 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
It still doesn't explain, why the stars at the center aren't following the nearby stars, while the stars at the perimeter yes. Actually, just at the center of galaxy the density of stars is highest, so that their cohesion should be highest there too. But the real situation is exactly the opposite.


The center does have a giant black hole. That is going to have a massive effect out to a certain distance. All the stars in the galaxy will have their speed somewhat set by how the stars in the center are behaving in relation to this giant mass.

It just doesn't behave so. Even the uncooked pizza is rotating as the single body and its axial speed is uniform along its radius.


Well the uncooked pizza is a hard rigid object compared to a conglomeration of stars. The point is that the stars are more connected with their immediate neighbors(clumps of dough) than they are a center of gravity thousands of lightyears away.

rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
The point is that the stars are more connected with their immediate neighbors than they are a center of gravity thousands of lightyears away.
The more it's strange, why the cohesion of stars at the boundary of galaxy should be more intensive, than at the case of stars at the center. I do understand your "cohesion" logics, but it works in exactly the opposite direction, than you probably want.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "I know, there is a number of alternative theories, but it doesn't explain, why the model above discussed should work."

Your approach here is wrong. You guys need to think harder about what you're doing here. You're ignoring all of your assumptions, and you're not critically thinking about the MISTAKES embedded within our theories. Are you guys all going to wait until the Higgs is definitively proven to not exist, before you deal with these problems? If you follow through my explanation, it is painfully clear that you cannot understand the rotation curves of galaxies without first examining the model for the atom. YOU HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH. There is no logic whatsoever in trying to understand the rotation of galaxies without a working model for the atom. You're building upon quicksand. The answer to the problem is a HOLISTIC, interdisciplinary approach to science. Stop thinking of science in terms of disciplines, and start thinking in terms of good and bad ideas.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
Your approach here is wrong.YOU HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH.
I'm starting from scratch all the time with my dense aether theory. The AWT can explain the dark matter around massive galaxies by itself, but I don't see any reason, why this matter should be related to mass of all other galaxies. So I'm not discussing it here. Until your Plasma Universe cannot explain it too, then it has no meaning to discuss it here as well. We can start with MOND, TeVeS or WIMPs theory of dark matter or whatever else theory with the same relevance.

Do you understand it? Your posts are irrelevant to subject and irrelevant posts are off topic posts and off-topic posts are just a spam - no less, no more.
El_Nose
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
I think I might agree with nano on this -- but i also think that that approach would be remarkably hard to simulate
Decimatus
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
The point is that the stars are more connected with their immediate neighbors than they are a center of gravity thousands of lightyears away.
The more it's strange, why the cohesion of stars at the boundary of galaxy should be more intensive, than at the case of stars at the center. I do understand your "cohesion" logics, but it works in exactly the opposite direction, than you probably want.


The stars in the center experience a form of turbulence from constantly being overtaken by neighbors. The stars in the center have a giant mass to spin around, but the stars further out don't yet still try to follow the closer stars.

As the inner stars overtake the outer stars they sap some of that velocity from them and then return it as the pass by.

The outer stars don't have that problem as they generally pull each other around in a rough orbit.

Think wind velocity difference between Jupiter and the Cold Giants.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "It's logical nonsense in particular and because it doesn't explain rotational curves of stars inside of galaxies, it's even off-topic here."

Rotational curves of galaxies is dealt with by Anthony Peratt using a plasma-based approach.

You guys are trying to abstract your way to the answers to these really tough questions, when you should be relying more upon synthesis. Abstraction is excellent for the construction of things like rockets and bridges. But, the problem is that our framework depends most heavily upon things happening at the smallest and largest scales of existence. Yet, this is where our ability to measure and experiment is also weakest. Thus, abstraction occurs on a weak foundation. But, if we look to interdisciplinary synthesis, as an approach to investigating the mysteries of the universe, it can make up for the failures of abstraction (when applied to the quantum or large-scale). That people have forgotten about the role of synthesis is the very problem.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
The stars in the center have a giant mass to spin around, but the stars further out don't yet still try to follow the closer stars.
It still doesn't explain, why these stars should follow minute distant stars instead of the close massive black hole with giant mass. The relative distance difference between the stars at the center and the stars at perimeter of galaxy from distant stars is infinitesimal. Why the star at the center of galaxy should be affected with distant stars inside of other galaxies differently, than the star at the perimeter of galaxy?
That people have forgotten about the role of synthesis is the very problem.
The role of synthetic thinking is important even in context of dense aether theory too - but until you have no idea, how to use it, then you have still nothing to offer.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "I know, there is a number of alternative theories, but it doesn't explain, why the model above discussed should work."

Nobody is going to discover a minor mathematical tweak to some existing idea which suddenly makes everything work. This is sheer nonsense, especially in light of glaring errors with regards to what an electron is. Where you see errors, you must fix them first, and only then proceed, as these errors propagate into the theory and create massive confusion. Science is more like the solving of a crime scene than playing God through equations. The law of contradiction rules all: If you see something spinning, it is not a dimensionless point. The truth will naturally follow from the process of fixing the errors in our consensus -- not from some guy sitting at a desk playing with equations and building universes in his head.
Decimatus
2 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
It still doesn't explain, why these stars should follow minute distant stars instead of the close massive black hole with giant mass. The relative distance difference between the stars at the center and the stars at perimeter of galaxy from distant stars is infinitesimal. Why the star at the center of galaxy should be affected with distant stars inside of other galaxies differently, than the star at the perimeter of galaxy?


I think you may misunderstand what I am saying.

The stars close to the black hole are whirling around the black hole. As you get further away, the black hole becomes less and less the most important factor in galactic rotation.

The perimeter stars are simply more closely tied to other perimeter stars than they are to the black hole 20-50k light years away.

But all the stars are essentially chained to the central mass by virtue of their neighbors. It all stretches back to the center.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
The problem of the large-scale is that astrophysicists completely ignore the implications of the observational fact that 99% of what we see in space is matter in the plasma state. They are problem-solving plasmas with the behavior of gases.

The same exact thing is happening in cell biology: Cell biologists admit that the cytoplasm is gel-like, but they persist in modeling the cell's innards as an aqueous solution. They are forced to infer the existence of pumps and channels for maintaining ionic gradients in the cell membrane, because they are ignoring the fact that gels can already do this.

At the quantum level, you have all of these clearly erroneous assumptions being made.

The pattern is clear: The problem with "modern science" is the over-reliance upon abstraction within intellectual confines, and the under-reliance on creative problem-solving in science. Scientists have adopted the corporate concept of what it means to be a "professional", but professionals are not creative.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
that 99% of what we see in space is matter in the plasma state
It still doesn't explain, why the plasma at the center of galaxies fits the Newtonian law while the peripheral plasma does not.
The truth will naturally follow from the process of fixing the errors in our consensus -- not from some guy sitting at a desk playing with equations and building universes in his head.
Both ways are possible and complementary.
The perimeter stars are simply more closely tied to other perimeter stars than they are to the black hole 20-50k light years away.
Why they should be, if A) the interaction of central black hole is way stronger? B) the total mass of perimeter stars is low with compare to the mass of stars at the center of galaxy C) the mutual distance of perimeter stars is much higher?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "It still doesn't explain, why the plasma at the center of galaxies fits the Newtonian law while the peripheral plasma does not."

Actually, yes it does. Just like you're ignoring the problems with our electron model, you're also completely ignoring the glaring issues with interstellar matter. Gerrit Verschuur, one of the world's most famous radio astronomers, has tried in vain to be very clear on the problems.

The biggest problem pertains to the morphology of the interstellar "clouds". Verschuur observes that interstellar "clouds" are in fact oftentimes highly filamentary.

Furthermore hehas analyzed all-sky surveys at the 21-cm wavelength, and there is no doubt that he is seeing critical ionization velocities associated with many of these filaments which correspond to universe's most common gases. CIV's are what you get when you slam charged particles into neutral clouds of gas.

This observation remains completely ignored, even though it was made something like 20 yrs ago
thefurlong
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
Newton's law says:

A = G* Pi *d *r^2 / r^2

The r^2 components cancel.

In any stable orbit, A will be proportional to velocity.


Not so fast, Nanobanano. You appear to assume that a galaxy's mass is uniformly distributed throughout the disk. I am fairly certain that this isn't the case. Instead, and actual experts on the subject can correct me if I am wrong, but density is higher at the center than it is radiating outward.

Your solution is simple enough so that someone would have figured it out by now. Science doesn't function by making wild-eyed claims, and then creating theoretical models to back them up. Dark matter arose because we had evidence that the density of galaxies tended to have some structure. Then, we analyzed the rotational velocities of outer parts of the galaxy and found that they didn't agree with that structure. Therefore, the simplest solution was to postulate that dark matter exists to account for this discrepancy.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Anthony Peratt can replicate spiral galaxies in both the laboratory and with simulation using the electrical force carried by Birkeland currents (his simulation includes gravity, contrary to repeated assertions to the contrary).

Laboratory plasma physics can accommodate ALL of the fundamental morphologies observed in space, including filaments, galaxy morphologies and especially bipolar morphologies -- which are the very fundamental z-pinch.

Wal Thornhill explains how magnetotails can pass just enough electrical charge from one planetary orbit to the next, to help stabilize our solar system. Thus, he incorporates electricity into his MOND.

Verschuur has also correlated *dozens* of these radio filaments he observes with WMAP hotspots.

There is by now a fully functional scientific framework which explains all of the most perplexing mysteries of science, and it is supported by rock-solid arguments throughout. You guys choose to ignore it.
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "It still doesn't explain, why the plasma at the center of galaxies fits the Newtonian law while the peripheral plasma does not."... Actually, yes it does... Verschuur observes that interstellar "clouds" are in fact oftentimes highly filamentary.

I know about it. How it does explain, why the plasma at the center of galaxies fits the Newtonian law while the peripheral plasma does not? Do you realize, your answer doesn't make any explanation, which is promising?
Dark matter arose because we had evidence that the density of galaxies tended to have some structure. Then, we analyzed the rotational velocities of outer parts of the galaxy and found that they didn't agree with that structure.
Nope, Zwicky didn't propose the dark matter from any galactic structure, its alleged disagreement with rotational velocities the less. He didn't bothered with some galactic structure at all. He just checked the Kepler's law for the stars inside of galaxies.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
The foundational claim being proposed by the Electric Universe advocates is that we can look to the plasma laboratory to understand cosmic plasmas. That this proposition is so heretical as to frequently elicit derision says much about conventional wisdom today. Correlations between the laboratory and our cosmic observations point to a new approach to science. This is a much stronger approach to science than sitting at a desk imagining the universe with equations. This is following the evidence where it leads us -- not where we imagine it SHOULD lead us, or where the mathematics can take us.

The claim that cosmic plasmas behave as laboratory plasmas is an authentic claim which deserves consideration. In the laboratory, plasmas are observed to conduct electrical currents over filaments. To see filaments in interstellar space which exhibit CIV's, and simply ignore the morphological similarities to laboratory plasmas is ANTI-SCIENCE.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "I know about it. How it does explain, why the plasma at the center of galaxies fits the Newtonian law while the peripheral plasma does not? Do you realize, your answer doesn't make any explanation, which is promising?"

The galaxies are spinning because they are drawing electricity inwards through their arms towards their centers, where the current is redirected along the axes. This is why galaxies are strung out like beads on a string. Connected galaxies are not "merging"; they are conducting.

The key to understanding galaxies is to study the plasma physics of transmission lines. There is this little-known mechanism from the plasma laboratory called Marklund convection which offers an explanation for how matter can be drawn into galactic configurations. It also makes important, accurate predictions about the distribution of elements within galaxies. Plasma filaments not only act as ion sumps from their surrounding space; they also tend to sort elements.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
In dense aether theory the structure of dark matter follows from geometry of particle packing. I know about structure of dark matter inside the galaxies and I perceive it as a continuation of this emergent geometry outside of galaxies.

http://www.aether...sion.gif

So I have no problem with it, but it still doesn't explain the rotational curves of stars inside of galaxies.

Connected galaxies are not "merging"; they are conducting.
There is absolutely no evidence of flow of charge, matter or stars along the fibres of dark matter both inside, both outside of galaxies.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
A lot of the objections to the EU model pertain specifically to the notion of the Sun being electrically powered. The problem is that nobody has directly witnessed this power source. But, laboratory plasma physics tells us that within the vicinity of the discharge, within the pinch's double layer (which corresponds to the Sun's heliopause), the power source will be an electron drift. This electron drift is devilishly complicated to measure, as we're talking about a net movement of electrons. How does one measure this? It's simply not going to be seen unless somebody actually builds a set of probes to actually measure it.

Don Scott has presented a detailed explanation for why the Sun maintains a steady visual output, even as the other spectra are highly dynamic -- all based upon electrodynamics and laboratory plasma physics fundamentals.

The plasma models which are commonly used today deprive the plasmas of all of their electromagnetism. They are not laboratory-based.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
I don't want to hear about features of Plasma Universe theory just here, until they cannot explain the problem of this article clearly. For example, string theory is claiming to explain everything, the MOND, STGV or TeVeS theories of dark matter have many features too. But none of these theories explains, why the mass of stars outside of galaxies accounts to the dark matter in the way, which the article is proposing. So they're irrelevant here.
to the notion of the Sun being electrically powered
This is even bigger nonsense, than the Ommatur's "neutron repulsion" model of Sun power.. Which is really something.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Re:"There is absolutely no evidence of flow of charge, matter or stars along the fibres of dark matter both inside, both outside of galaxies."

Dark matter is a simply a mathematical artifact of the failure of the gravity-based framework. You are seeing an accounting deficit because of the disparity in strength between the gravitational and electric forces.

In the laboratory, Birkeland currents exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, with the force of the electric force. In other words, the force is carried along the length of the filaments. Thus, electricity can reach places far beyond the reach of the radial force of gravity.

So long as people insist on modeling the universe based upon the weakest known force, those models will continue to be forced to resort to dark matters and forces to explain the discrepency. The ONLY way to fix the accounting discrepency is to reformulate the universe with electricity.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "... For example, string theory ..."

There is not a shred of a reason to believe in string theory, because it does not pertain to physical ideas. It is a repeat of the same mistake which has been made with the electron, which Dirac readily admits: Just as the point-source model for the electron is an unphysical mathematical notion, so too is string theory. It's all thought-experimentation with no basis in any laboratory whatsoever.

The problem of your approach to science is that you are thinking within the established confines which have been assigned to you. This is how "professionals" solve problems: They adopt the mindset -- including all of the assumptions -- that their bosses instill with them. The professional is he who instinctively knows what his boss wants him to think, and effortlessly directs his thoughts towards that worldview.

The big-picture problems of science cannot be addressed in this manner. Instead, we have to listen to criticisms and find the errors.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
I do believe you, you do believe in plasma universe theory, I do believe in dense aether model as well. But currently the Plasma Universe cannot explain even violation of Kepler's law around galaxies, not to say about why this violation corresponds the gravity of far away galaxies. So it's useless if not counter-productive to discuss it right here - just face the reality. You should choose another thread, which fits the capabilities of Plasma Universe model better. The explanation of dark matter belong its weakest part. Just listen this criticism and try repair its errors first.
The professional is he who instinctively knows what his boss wants him to think, and effortlessly directs his thoughts towards that worldview
We aren't your bosses, sorry.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Also, it means much, much more that an emerging theory can accommodate the full breadth of observations and experimentation than the degree to which the theory has been fully quantified. The reason is that we can quantify any theory we decide to quantify. The process of comparing and contrasting scientific frameworks should focus exclusively upon the existence of underlying physical explanations for the mathematics. The completeness of the mathematics is absolutely irrelevant. The problem is not in our ability to construct complete scientific frameworks. The problem is in the linkage of these frameworks to reality! The Electric Universe solves this persistent problem in science which many people seem completely unaware of. There must be physical reasons for why these equations work, but you cannot reverse-engineer the physics from the equations. You have to propose a physical mechanism first, and then quantify those concepts into mathematics.

APPROACH MATTERS IN SCIENCE!
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "But currently the Plasma Universe cannot explain even violation of Kepler's law around galaxies"

It's right in front of your face, and you simply refuse to look at it. If the arms of galaxies are drawing electrical currents inwards towards the axis, then the galaxy will rotate more like a fixed plate than the galactic rotation models which look to gravity as the universe's fundamental force. This is called a homopolar motor (or a Faraday disc). We need not propose exotic physics to explain it. We can formulate a classical physics explanation for it -- as well as everything else that we see.

By Occam's Razor, the classical model defeats all of the others. And those who try to argue against the plasma-based view of the universe are forced to reject the notion that cosmic plasmas behave as laboratory plasmas. The very man who invented magnetohydrodynamics -- and who received the Nobel for that feat -- has tried in vain to distance himself from the way in which MHD is applied.
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
There must be physical reasons for why these equations work, but you cannot reverse-engineer the physics from the equations.
Actually we can do just because of it. The above article points to interesting stuff: the dark matter outside of galaxies is related to the attractive gravity of all matter around it, just with sign reversed. I met with similar behaviour many times in both context of dense aether model, both outside of it.

For example, the CMBR radiation inside of our Universe corresponds the Hawking radiation outside of black holes. These black holes are evaporating during this and now we can ask, how large the black hole should be, to survive the whole Universe. It's actually pretty small, about 2 cm and the wavelength of its Hawking's radiation is corresponding. All the black holes with life time corresponding the Universe would radiate the same microwaves, like the Universe of the same life-time.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Hannes Alfven used the occasion of his Nobel acceptance speech in 1970 as an opportunity to try to dissuade astrophysicists from modeling plasmas effectively as gases. Based upon a lifetime of work with plasmas within the laboratory, he strenuously objected to the modeling of cosmic plasmas with frozen-in magnetic fields. He called it a pseudo-pedagogical notion -- one that appears to superficially help, but in fact dramatically misleads.

By fixing the errors within the plasma models, we can look to the plasma laboratory to infer the causes for our observations of space.

Needless to say, Alfven's warnings have been completely ignored by online pundits. Rather than work with Alfven's conclusions, after a lifetime of work, astrophysicists would prefer to work with his initial hypotheses -- where he erroneously proposed that the cosmic plasmas were gas-like. The mistake has become embedded because it helps with the gravity-based framework. But we need to build a new framework now.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
These black holes can be therefore considered as the outer surface of our Universe, just being observed from inside of it. Such claim may appear fantastic, but it isn't if we consider the foamy geometry of the space-time. Inside of foam it's quite common, the part of energy is spreading both through surface, both through bulk. For example, if we cover the shining light bulb with bucket of foam, whole the surface of foam will glow, not just the interior of bucket.

http://www.aether...etry.gif

Analogously, at the water surface the energy is radiated in transverse waves at distance. But at the certain distance from source all energy is dispersed into underwater, so it comes to the source back again, just in form of longitudinal waves.

http://www.aether...oam1.gif

We are facing the Mobius strip or so-called Klein bottle Universe topology.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "CMBR radiation inside of our Universe corresponds the Hawking radiation outside of black holes"

You will not get to the truth through a process of ignoring the critics. Not only has Stephen Crothers called into question the underlying mathematics of black holes, but the very reason that they are proposed to exist is because of the same energy accounting deficit which leads to the inference of dark matter as well. In an electric universe, there is no accounting discrepancy, and thus no need to postulate invisible movers and shakers causing everything of importance that we see. That is an unscientific approach to science. Theories are SUPPOSED to be falsifiable. Black holes clearly are NOT falsifiable.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
There is interesting aspect of travel through black hole event horizon, providing you could survive such travel, indeed. If you would approach the event horizon of black hole, it will expand, until it will cover the whole sky. In this moment a strange things will happen: it will disappear suddenly and it will reappear behind your back. Now the interior of black hole will appear like void empty space and the former Universe with many stars on the sky will now appear like single white spot or the glowing star behind your back.

If the black hole will be really huge, its even horizon will behave like the fuzzball - it will not disappear immediately, instead of this it will become broken into many black event horizons and the microwave sky will collapse into many glowing stars.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "the dark matter outside of galaxies is related to the attractive gravity of all matter around it, just with sign reversed."

This is exactly what I'm pointing to as an erroneous methodology in cosmology/astrophysics. We are all prone to copying the approach of those around us in what we do. Group brainstorming does not work because mediocre ideas are locked onto, and preclude open-minded discourse on better ideas.

This notion that you can figure out what dark matter is by playing with equations leads to ridiculous results like negative gravity. There is no such thing in the laboratory, so why are we wasting our time talking about it in space?

We can come up with fanciful ideas in our heads, but it is where the rubber meets the road which matters: All of these ideas will have to eventually point to something physical underlying them in order for them to manifest into ACTIONABLE IDEAS which we can extend with additional physics. By breaking logic, the idea bcomes a dead end.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
In another words, our Universe appears in similar way, like we would travel across event horizon of some giant black hole. And we can see both the inner surface of the event horizon in the form of elementary particles, both the outer surface of it in the form of black holes dispersed on the sky. Although both these event horizons appear differently, they're just parts of the same hyperdimensional geometry.

Recently the holographic model gained some popularity. It operates in five dimensions only, nevertheless it's able to demonstrate the AdS/CFT correspondence: the quantum effects at the surface of Riemann sphere behave in the same way, like the relativity inside of de Sitter space, which is filling it. At the beginning of the last century Lamaitre derived, that the geometry of our Universe appears like the interior of black hole inside out, described with so called the FLRW metric.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "There is interesting aspect of travel through black hole event horizon, providing you could survive such travel, indeed."

Once again, you're thinking in a bubble, impervious to the counter-arguments which demonstrate that relativity is self-contradictory. From "A Classical Foundation for Electrodynamics" by Barnes, Pemper and Armstrong (page 39):

"The twin paradox of special relativity illustrates the extent of irrationality to which the theory leads. It is hypothesized that if one baby were to travel away from the earth in some theoretical type of space ship with a speed nearly equal to the speed of light, that he would not age as fast as his twin brother who remained at home. This is based on the concept of time dilation, which says that moving clocks run slower than clocks at rest, biological processes being equated with clocks. When the baby returns many years later from his high speed voyage he will still be a baby whereas his twin brother who remained on earth ...
thefurlong
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
Nope, Zwicky didn't propose the dark matter from any galactic structure, its alleged disagreement with rotational velocities the less. He didn't bothered with some galactic structure at all. He just checked the Kepler's law for the stars inside of galaxies.


Maybe you didn't understand what I meant when I used "structure." I was referring to the model where the mass is largely concentrated in the center. From searching Google:

"As a rich and compact galactic supercluster, Coma shows a strong central condensation and spherical symmetry...[its] visible mass, however, has long been known to be insufficient to maintain its strong symmetry. Hence, [its] existence provides strong evidence of the existence of unseen, dark matter that is presumed to be providing the gravitational pull for holding the cluster together."

Anyway, he didn't just "check Kepler's law." He used the deeper "Virial Theorem." Also, there are 3 of "Kepler's laws", the 3rd related to this theorem.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
... will be an old man ...

The noted British scientist Herbert Dingle (a well known authority on special relativity who later became convinced of the untenability of the theory) has for years shown a logical fallacy in the special theory of relativity with regard to time dilation ...

Dingle points out that special theory assumes that there is no absolute frame of reference. Motion being relative according to the theory, it is not possible to tell which of the twins is at rest and which is in uniform motion. The so-called moving twin might be at rest while the earth moves away with uniform speed. Obviously, the same clock cannot run both fast and slow at the same time.

Relativity could not tell which twin was aging while the uniform relative speed was in existence (during essentially all of the hypothetical time involved). Dingle's arguments seem to make the twin paradox an absolute contradiction."
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
In dense aether theory the Hubble red shift is explained with analogy of the dispersion of water surface ripples at the tiny density fluctuations of Brownian noise in the underwater. During this the speed of surface waves decreases and their wavelength contracts accordingly. From perspective of observer sitting at the water surface this situation appears, like if the water surface would expand with decreasing distance from singular size.

http://people.rit...4565.jpg

But from the perspective of the observer outside of water surface the same situation appears, like if the source of ripples would be surrounded with invisible dense matter, which slows down the propagation of surface waves like invisible cloud of dark matter. The same dispersive phenomena therefore accounts both into Hubble red shift when being observed from inside, both the dark matter effect, when being observed from outside.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
The last insight comes from old hypothesis of Ernst Mach, in which the origin of inertia comes from mass of all stars inside of observable Universe. It had lead into many controversies, so that this model has been abandoned later - but not forgotten, as we really have no explanation for inertia of massive objects anyway.

http://en.wikiped...argument

Now we are facing the similar argument, that the dark matter is the result of gravity of all stars inside of observable Universe, just with the opposite sign.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "In dense aether theory the Hubble red shift is explained with analogy of the dispersion of water surface ripples at the tiny density fluctuations of Brownian noise in the underwater."

You're making the same mistake, all over again, by ignoring criticisms of conventional redshift theory. Halton Arp has identified high-redshift quasars both associated with and even in front of low-redshift galaxies. We are told that they are supposedly shining through the galaxies, but to make the theory work, quasars would have to be metaphysically large.

Arp has identified an inherent quantized component to the redshifts which exists within the raw redshift data, alongside the velocity component. These inherent components are actually *quantized* insofar as they progress through a sequence of specific values.

Your proposal for mathematics to explain redshifts puts us exactly where we were before: searching for an underlying physical mechanism which fits into a larger picture.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
Re: "Re: In dense aether theory the Hubble red shift is explained with analogy of the dispersion of water surface ripples at the tiny density fluctuations of Brownian noise in the underwater."

Adding to the problems with your analysis is the fact that water's structure is the result of dipolar lattices of electron spins. Water's peculiar characteristics follow from its ability to structure into a single resonating structure. This is what "water tension" is. We ignore the dipolar forces in Nature to the detriment of our theories in science. Not only do they play a vital role in explaining what life is (see Gerald Pollack's work), but dipolar structures can also explain what gravity is (see Wal Thornhill's work).

The importance of chains of dipolar molecules will be the next big thing to happen in science. With this amazingly simple idea, we can take science to the next level. But, so long as people insist on ignoring critics, we put off our own future.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
alton Arp has identified high-redshift quasars both associated with and even in front of low-redshift galaxies.

Actually, the problem would rather be, if these highly massive quasars with strong gravitational red shift would be shifter toward blue spectrum with respect of galaxies at the same distance. If they're massive, if means, it will exhibit higher red shift, than the less massive galaxy at the same distance. So I don't really see any problem here.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
the problems with your analysis is the fact that water's structure is the result of bipolar lattices of electron spins

The character of surface wave dispersion has fortunately nothing to do with inner structure of water molecules, because the size of surface ripples is much higher, than the size of water molecules. The dispersion of surface ripples at the surface of non-polar fluids will behave in the same way, because this dispersion is just a product of Brownian noise - nothing else at this distance scale. Of course, the dispersion of ripples at the very tiny distance would be affected with inner structure of water molecules, but it would require to study it at much higher energy density of vibrations, than the energy density of common surface ripples.
thefurlong
3 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
HannesAlfven, you are simply wrong about relativity being self-contradictory. The twin paradox is only paradoxical when you misapply the laws of the Relativity of Simultaneity. If you were to actually apply Lorenz transforms to the events described in the twin paradox, you would, indeed, see that there is no contradiction, and the traveling twin is the one who ages. To be clear, define the traveling twin as the one who reaches a distant star, then turns around.

You are wrong in assuming that the two points of view are equivalent for the following reasons:
1) The destination of the traveling twin (T2) is in the same inertial reference frame (IRF) as the earthbound one (called T1). When the traveling twin travels, his idea of the distance to be traveled is smaller.

2) When, T2 turns around, he performs what's known as a "frame jump." He will see T1's clock suddenly jump forward. [To be continued]
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
Your proposal for mathematics to explain redshifts puts us exactly where we were before: searching for an underlying physical mechanism which fits into a larger picture.
I don't propose any math, but the coincidence of some formal model is the another factor in the game. I'm willing to handle both nonformal arguments, both arguments following from formal logics. Even the string theory can have its bit of truth, when the higher-dimensional topology are taken into account, because the dispersion of energy at the water surface is just based on the transfer of energy from 2D water surface into extradimension of 3D underwater. The water surface can serve both as the model of space-time, both as the model of brane in string theory, etc.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
scientist Herbert Dingle.. has shown a logical fallacy in the special theory of relativity with regard to time dilation
If you want to bring something new, you should focus to positive aspects of theories, not just to their problems - or you'll spend whole your life with criticizing of people. You will just pile up the enemies, whereas the other smart asses will use your insights for constructive work.
The twin paradox is only paradoxical when you misapply the laws of the Relativity of Simultaneity
We should focus to single problem - not to solve the problems of all existing theories just because HannesAlfven presented an ad-hoc example of contemporary physics rotten.
thefurlong
3 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
[continued]
If he were decelerating continuously, he would move through a bunch of IRF's that each have their own version of how old T1 should be (they each have their own clock). At some point, he would be in the same IRF as the destination and T1, so their age would be "updated" to the appropriate one.

3) If you tried to apply this same argument to T1, namely that according to T2, T1 turned around, you would be forgetting that the destination also accelerated and turned around, so they also aged the same amount. Again, the situation is not symmetric.

4) Thinking about it intuitively, once you reached the destination, and slowed down, you would receive the same signals that the destination received from the twin at that point in time.

A word of advice: Unless you actually take the time to either understand the calculations involved yourself, or work them out, you shouldn't claim that something that has been thoroughly vetted by extremely smart people is wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2011
I already explained this without Dark Matter, using nothing but Newton's law of gravity and the concept of an extended, rotating disk.
Wasnt this the time when you thought you could do celestial mechanics but after 20-plus posts or so somebody who actually knew what they were talking about came along and pointed out some of the many things you did not know, and so proved all your ramblings were only bullshit squared?

Is this the time you are talking about QC?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
I already explained this without Dark Matter, using nothing but Newton's law of gravity and the concept of an extended, rotating disk.
Wasnt this the time when you thought you could do celestial mechanics but after 20-plus posts or so somebody who actually knew what they were talking about came along and pointed out some of the many things you did not know, and so proved all your ramblings were only bullshit squared?

Is this the time you are talking about QC?
Oh I see thefurlong has already needed to do this in this thread. Maybe it will take root and displace your compulsive mania this time? Or not.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
OK kids, enough twaddling - I just realized, how it's working - and it's actually ve-e-e-ry easy...;-) The article finding is real and it actually supports the 400 years old de Duillier-LeSage theory, which is AWT compliant, BTW. In this model the gravity is the effect of tachyon shielding with observable matter. These tachyons are essentially gravitational waves (de Duillier called them ultramundanne particles, which brings the multiverse concept on mind). And the dark matter is simply result of this shielding with shielding of tachyons with remote matter. So it's sorta shielding of shielding, which explains some antigravity aspects of dark matter. At the center of galaxy the distant stars are already shielded with stars at the perimeter of galaxy, so that their shielding and dark matter cannot apply here, which explains, why dark matter doesn't violate Kepler's law at the center of galaxy. I'll still draw some picture of it - but I hope, this principle is clear enough for all of you.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
It means, if the Nicolas Fatio de Duillier would be more clever, he could derive the existence of dark matter just with using of his own insights. Which unfortunately didn't happened (he couldn't observe it anyway with the contemporary telescopes). Anyway, you can consider it as an independent confirmation of both de Duillier-LeSage theory, both the confirmation of both Carati's derivation, both the observations of rotational curves of stars inside of galaxies choosen.
thefurlong
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
These tachyons are essentially gravitational waves


Wait--what? Where did Tachyons come in? Why are we talking about them?

Oh right, because--the multiverse! Duh!

I wonder if there is a part of the multiverse in which we apply Occam's razor...hmmmm.....
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
Aether is particle model and in particle environment we always have two kinds of waves: the slower transverse and the faster longitudinal ones. The light waves are transverse, so that the gravitational waves are the only option...
thefurlong
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
Aether is particle model and in particle environment we always have two kinds of waves: the slower transverse and the faster longitudinal ones. The light waves are transverse, so that the gravitational waves are the only option...


I know what Aether is. What are the differential equations governing this aether, that allow you to predict gravitational tachyons? Can you direct me to them?
bewertow
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
Scrap the point-source model for these particles, and let's start the real work of building a geometry for our particles. It is absolutely mindless to assume that point-sources can spin, guys.


You're a huge n00b. Particles don't actually spin, just how charm quarks aren't charming and colour charge for quarks has nothing to do with colour. Nobody actually assumes that electrons are spinning.
Ober
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
Off topic, but since ppl have mentioned electrons, and then the mobius strip, a mobius strip does seem to fit some of the electrons behaviour. ie two traversals to present the same face, ie a spin half particle. Just seems that point particles don't fit, and geometric entities do. Hence the idea of string theory!!! Any object viewed from far enough away, makes it look like a point. So geometric entities at the scale of strings (string theory), provides a very nice approach to have geometry, and yet "look" like points at our scale. Now I realise this was off topic, but it would seem geometry is the key to understanding all (in my opinion). Thus scaling this idea up, means there is some fundamental missing geometry in our consideration of galactic rotation.
Now what about those BLACK HOLES in the centre of every galaxy. We really don't understand the geometry there, as theory tells us there is a point singularity at its centre. Understand blackholes, and the rest will fall into place.
lomed
not rated yet Dec 05, 2011
The article (and associated paper) seem interesting. If the results are indeed general with no more adjustable parameters than for dark matter and they fit the data at least as well, I think this would be great news. One thing puzzles me about this method, they state that the source of the anomalous acceleration is the variance (autocorrelation?) in the mass distribution. One would think that such an effect would vary significantly from place to place and (perhaps) be as often positive as negative with a wide range of values. This is not the impression I get of the observational evidence for the galactic-scale anomalous acceleration (as I understand it the large majority of galaxies have the same sign of required additional acceleration esp. spiral galaxies in the outer parts of their disks). Furthermore, the paper posits a value for the the autocorrelation as having arisen from a fractal large-scale structure, has this parameter not been constrained by observations?
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
Ober: ...theory tells us there is a point singularity at its centre. Understand blackholes, and the rest will fall into place.

Yes GR gives lots of good results but also some nonsense. For example what is the gravitational force at the center of mass of a black hole? Or any other object for that matter? So I can't see how you can have any singularity without gravity. So we need a realistic model for a black hole. The center of a black hole is occupied by the densest elements of whatever matter enters the black hole after it is torn into its constituent parts by acceleration at the event horizon. Other particles settle in according to their mass density, lighter elements away from the center in what you might call shells of similar mass density.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
HannesAlfven: ...Dingle's arguments seem to make the twin paradox an absolute contradiction.

Well look at it from the point of view of quantum gravity. Actually velocity has nothing to do with the paradox, it's only acceleration. You have to accelerate elements of spacetime to reach a greater velocity. Acceleration and deceleration requires force and that force causes elements of spacetime to be compressed, even during deceleration. Thus the total time required will be the sum of compressed elements of spacetime during acceleration, while the constant velocity twin will experience uncompressed elements of spacetime and thus experience more total time.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
HannesAlfven: ...dipolar structures can also explain what gravity is

I think dipolar structures can explain all of the U including time. I include time because everything else seems to be dipolar and I don't want to give time any different treatment than the spatial dimensions, electro-magnetism and such. This requires the cyclic theory, where the BB may be regarded as one pole and the other pole when the DE runs out and the U begins its recollapse.

I consider matter to be a higher density of spacetime energy and anti-matter to be lower density, but not less than zero. Higher density matter pulls in neighboring elements of spacetime and sinks (dark matter, gravity, black holes and such) and lower density matter is repelled by the elements of stretched (tighter) spacetime (anti-gravity). Spacetime being flexible we can expect turbulence at the BB resulting in macroscopic areas of high density (dark matter) and similar areas of low density (anti-dark matter).
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
HannesAlfven: ...In the laboratory, Birkeland currents exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, with the force of the electric force. In other words, the force is carried along the length of the filaments. Thus, electricity can reach places far beyond the reach of the radial force of gravity.

I can understand long-range gravitational and short-range repulsion for like charges, but the idea of stringing together like charges doesn't seem as if it would add up to an attractive electrical force.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
HannesAlfven: ...professionals are not creative.

So much for artistic talent.
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
When we look at the gravity of the stars in our Milky Way galaxy, affects gravity probably seen the same way as the rings in a protective suit of rings. To distant ring cohesion does not affect each other directly, but do it through the intermediate rings.

An inner-lying star in a galaxy can be affected by the same size of gravity, like a star located far from the center, thus seen from our field of vision may have the same rotation speed and therefore do not need more mass (dark matter) to get greater gravity.

Coherence force is the same everywhere in a galaxy, however, slightly larger in the inner part than in the periphery.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2011
The Carati's article suffers with the same problem, like the recent Hajdukovics articles, as it cannot account for example to

1) dark galaxies, i.e. the areas of dark matter without observable matter at their center.

2) the phenomena like the Bullet cluster, where the dark matter is behaving like the cloud of charged particles (formation of tails and drag brushes)

3) the phenomena, where the dark matter forms rings around rotating galaxies and/or galactic clusters. Such phenomena rather point to particle model of dark matter, like the WIMPS.

It means, the particle theories of dark matter aren't still dead.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
The Carati's model is phenomenologically more interesting, as it points to the superluminal connection (entanglement) of all observable objects inside of observable Universe. The dark matter around galaxies reflects ALL observable matter in the Universe, no matter how is it distant. At the very beginning the Universe didn't contain any matter, so it couldn't contain even any dark matter. Which violates some models, in which the observable matter was formed with condensation of dark matter.

Another interesting point is, the other shielding effects can be explained in the same way. For example if the Casimir force is short distance analogy of dark matter in the Universe, it could be expressed as a result of shielding of all (?) photons radiated with the observable matter in the Universe or something similar.
Shinichi D_
not rated yet Dec 06, 2011
Tuxford:
And galactic rotation is assumed from red/blue-shift observations. Actual galactic rotation from star displacement in distant galaxies has not been confirmed optically. Such a measurement would take far longer than our lifetimes?


Such observations were actually done, in our galaxy. Near the center, star displacement can be observed in weeks, not in a lifetime. And those observations fall in compliance with blue/redshift measurements of the same region of stars near the center.

And the fact, that i've never in my liftime been to Australia, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2011
The center of a black hole is occupied by the densest elements of whatever matter enters the black hole after it is torn into its constituent parts by acceleration at the event horizon. Other particles settle in according to their mass density, lighter elements away from the center in what you might call shells of similar mass density.

True in the case of no spin. But angular momentum is conserved when the BH collapses and acts like a giant centrifuge which could reverse the order of shell densities inside the BH.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
For example what is the gravitational force at the center of mass of a black hole? Or any other object for that matter?


It must be zero because at the center all the mass surrounding the center is exerting equal attraction at that point. The weight of an obeject is at maximum on the surface & drops as it nears the center. That's why we measure the weight of things from the standpoint of "surface gravity".
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2011
At the very beginning the Universe didn't contain any matter, so it couldn't contain even any dark matter.

I'll buy that except for leptons which I guess are technically particles. It contained the DE and leptons, the force carriers of DE.
Which violates some models, in which the observable matter was formed with condensation of dark matter.

Dark matter being formed from spacetime turbulence of the DE at the BB. About 6% of DM was converted to particle matter during inflation by condensation. Doesn't violate this model.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
As a technical aside to all the discussion about "redshift", there is one other redshift effect to be accounted for for which I've seen seen no mention of:photon scatter effect. It's the same effect that creates red sunsets, because photons streaming from the setting sun encounter more atmospheric matter than at mid-day when the sun's streaming photons encounter less atmosphere matter therefore we see a blue sky.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
@Benni: in dense aether theory the Hubble red shift corresponds the dispersion of waves at the 2D water surface, where the portion of energy escapes into extradimensions of it, i.e. into 3D underwater.

http://aetherwave...ory.html

This way of dispersion differs from Rayleigh dispersion in many aspects. For example, it does change the wavelength of light and for the light of long wavelength its sign is reversed.

http://aetherwave...ime.html
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
About 6% of DM was converted to particle matter during inflation by condensation.

Let's make that about 15%, as in 4/27.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
About 6% of DM was converted to particle matter during inflation by condensation.

Let's make that about 15%, as in 4/27.
Why not 6%? The categorical claims without logical explanations are just a twaddling and it helps no one. We have enough such a categorical claims in mainstream science already.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
For example what is the gravitational force at the center of mass of a black hole? Or any other object for that matter?


It must be zero because at the center all the mass surrounding the center is exerting equal attraction at that point. The weight of an obeject is at maximum on the surface & drops as it nears the center. That's why we measure the weight of things from the standpoint of "surface gravity".


What? No, not even close... Attraction due to gravity is given as Gmm/r^2 where one m is the mass of one object and the other is the mass of the other object. The closer the two masses the stronger the exertion of the force of gravity... you have it backwards.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
@Callippo Your reference http://aetherwave...ime.html
talks about "wavelengths larger then CMB wavelength". The CMB is blackbody radiation containing all wavelengths.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
About 6% of DM was converted to particle matter during inflation by condensation.

Let's make that about 15%, as in 4/27.

Why not 6%? The categorical claims without logical explanations are just a twaddling and it helps no one. We have enough such a categorical claims in mainstream science already.

Sorry about the categorical claims in mainstream science. It certainly serves no purpose except to stimulate further inquiry. This ratio is the % normal matter divided by the % total matter in the U.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
For example what is the gravitational force at the center of mass of a black hole? Or any other object for that matter?


It must be zero because at the center all the mass surrounding the center is exerting equal attraction at that point. The weight of an obeject is at maximum on the surface & drops as it nears the center. That's why we measure the weight of things from the standpoint of "surface gravity".


What? No, not even close... Attraction due to gravity is given as Gmm/r^2 where one m is the mass of one object and the other is the mass of the other object. The closer the two masses the stronger the exertion of the force of gravity... you have it backwards.


Nevermind, I misunderstood you, you are correct, if you go beneath the surface of an object like the Earth then some of it's mass is pulling you in the opposite direction and counteracting some of the gravitational attraction.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
Ergo the force of gravity at the CM of a black hole is zero. So what force would drive it into a singularity? Sorry uncle Al.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
well I don't believe in infinite density so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
Me neither. Sorry about the wrong tree.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
Ergo the force of gravity at the CM of a black hole is zero. So what force would drive it into a singularity? Sorry uncle Al.


SINGULARITY implies "infinity". This is why singularity cannot exist at the center of a black hole or anything else. Infinite mass would equal infinite gravity & vice versa. It is demonstrable that gravitational attraction drops on approach to the center of a mass, any mass, if this were not the case weight of the "single" particle of matter that would occupy the absolute center would be infinite.

How could a single quark, or whatever, have infinite gravity if it has so little mass?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
This is why singularity cannot exist at the center of a black hole or anything else.
Singularity is just a formal concept of formally thinking theorists, which labels the situation, when their equations stop to work. Such a singularities are all around us, for example the water surface is a singularity with respect to surface waves, or sound waves, which are bouncing from it. Even these ripples are ending in singularity from perspective of surface ripples, albeit nothing singular is about it from perspective of light waves: http://people.rit...4565.jpg
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
This is why singularity cannot exist at the center of a black hole or anything else.
Singularity is just a formal concept of formally thinking theorists, which labels the situation, when their equations stop to work.


It's for sure their equations stop working, they go to infinity, which is why introducing the concept of "singularity" into quantum mechanics doesn't work.

The whole concept of "singularity" has been toyed with in such a manner as to imply "something" out there is "infinite", a completely different concept than what you brought forth concerning surface waves, etc.

But what do I know, it ws hard enough for me to get through engineering, so I can see why Albert Einstein had such a hard time with it, he couldn't he finish high school. (tongue in cheek guys, tongue in cheek, I'm not implying I'm at least as smart as Al).
iFujita
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2011
HannesAlfven Dec 05, 2011
The mystery of gravity is a product of the mistakes embedded within our theories. ---- Yes!

Decimatus Dec 05, 2011
The galazy is more like an uncooked pizza being tossed in the air than the current center of gravity model. --- No!
We can probe nothing by that.

Then I proposed a new way of thinking.
Two or One dimensional Galaxy.
http://www.geocit...y01.html

Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2011
Then I proposed a new way of thinking.
Two or One dimensional Galaxy.
http://www.geocit...y01.html



I did my best to follow this, but I have to say the plethora of calculus does not prove a theory (coming at you from an engineer's point of view), left me with the feeling of being just a bystander, but I guess that's what us amateur astronomers are expected to be.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
The galazy is more like an uncooked pizza being tossed in the air than the current center of gravity model. --- No! Then I proposed a new way of thinking. Two or One dimensional Galaxy.
What does make difference in it? Isn't pizza already two dimensional? In dense aether theory the flat shape of galaxy is rather product of circulation of mass inside of galaxy at the certain stage of evolution - in this stage the central black hole evaporates its mass in two jets, which behave like gigantic fountains and eject the matter to the perimeter of galaxy, where it condenses.
lomed
not rated yet Dec 12, 2011
Then I proposed a new way of thinking.
Two or One dimensional Galaxy.
http://www.geocit...y01.html
All of the math seems to follow logically from the premises. However, I am not sure the premises are reasonable. In particular, I don't think the idea of a complex metric makes sense. The whole point of a metric is to map vectors into real numbers so that length, volume, integration, etc. make sense.

Physically, it does not make sense to insert imaginary numbers into quantities, e.g., force, that are measurable (measurement implies a notion similar to distance exists for a property of an object, since distances must be real numbers, measurements must be also).

In your law of gravitation and separation, the laws of gravitational force and separational force have the same dependence on distance, r. So, unless the energy density varies from mass to mass, the only effect is to reduce gravity by some constant irrespective of distance scale.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Note technically infinite density is different from infinite mass. That is if mass = 1 and volume = 0 then density = 1/0 = infinite.