Map of universe questioned: Dwarf galaxies don't fit standard model

Jun 11, 2014
Material stripped from the galaxy during its collision with a smaller galaxy (seen in the upper left corner of the larger interaction partner) forms a long tidal tail. Young blue stars, star clusters and tidal dwarf galaxies are born in these tidal debris. These objects move in a common direction within a plane defined by the orientation and motion of their tidal tail. A similar galaxy interaction might have occurred in the Local Group in the past, which could explain the distribution of dwarf galaxies in co-rotating planes. Credit: NASA, Holland Ford (JHU), the ACS Science Team and ESA

Satellite dwarf galaxies at the edges of the Milky Way and neighboring Andromeda defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to pigeon-hole them into the model are flawed, an international team of scientists reports.

The mismatch raises questions about the accuracy of the of cosmology, which is the widely accepted paradigm for the origin and evolution of the universe, the astrophysicists say.

A preprint of the research paper, accepted for publication by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, is online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1799.

The standard model, also called the "lambda cold dark matter model," says that satellite in the Milky Way and Andromeda are expected to behave a certain way: The galaxies would form in halos of dark matter, be widely distributed and would have to move in random directions, said Marcel Pawlowski, a postdoctoral researcher in the astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University and lead author of the new study.

"But what astronomers see is different," Pawlowski said. "We see the are in a huge disk and moving in the same direction within this disk, like the planets in our solar system moving in a thin plane in one direction around the sun. That's unexpected and could be a real problem."

In the Milky Way, the dwarf galaxies and accompanying star clusters and streams of stars are in what's called the Magellanic plane, or what the authors call the Vast Polar Structure; and in Andromeda, half of the satellites are in the Great Plane of Andromeda.

Pawlowski and 13 co-authors from six different countries examined three recent papers by different international teams that concluded the planar distributions of galaxies fit the standard model.

"When we compared simulations using their data to what is observed by astronomers, we found a very substantial mismatch," Pawlowski said.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
A video of a computer simulation modeling the merger of two galaxies

With computers, the researchers simulated mock observations of thousands of Milky Ways using the same data as the three previous papers. They found just one of a few thousand simulations matched what astronomers actually observe around the Milky Way.

"But we also have Andromeda," Pawlowski said. "The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000."

When the researchers corrected for flaws they say they found in the three studies, they could not reproduce the findings made in the respective papers.

"The standard model contains various putative ingredients— such as dark matter and dark energy —which were introduced because the model wasn't consistent with observations," said Benoit Famaey, a senior research associate at the University of Strasbourg in France, and co-author of the study.

Famaey and the other authors are among a small but growing number of astrophysicists who find the standard model fails to replicate what's observed and therefore they seek alternatives.

Dark matter is thought to be an as-yet undetected matter that provides galaxies with enough mass to prevent the speed of their rotation from pulling them apart. If present, the unseen cloud of matter would be extremely unlikely to result in the planar structures seen.

The authors suggest an alternative and older explanation for the satellite dwarf galaxies: a collision between two galaxies. The collision may have ripped material from the galaxies and thrown it a great distance, much like tides on Earth. The resulting tidal dwarf galaxies are formed from the debris.

"Standard galaxies must contain dark matter, but tidal galaxies cannot contain ," said Pavel Kroupa, a co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Bonn in Germany.

"There's a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity"

The group will continue to study tidal dwarf galaxies and whether another alternative to the standard model—modified gravity—fits what they observe.

The researchers say science may initially balk at the premise but has historically embraced challenges to accepted theories, and for good reason.

"When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it," said David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology and co-author of the new study. "This is how progress in science is made."

Explore further: Stream of stars in Andromeda satellite galaxy shows cosmic collision

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dark matter mystery deepens

Oct 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter ...

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 : 97

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 11, 2014
The mismatch raises questions about the accuracy of the standard model of cosmology, which is the widely accepted paradigm for the origin and evolution of the universe


Another of many nails in the coffin of the standard theory.

Pawlowski... examined three recent papers by different international teams that concluded the planar distributions of galaxies fit the standard model.
"When we compared simulations using their data to what is observed by astronomers, we found a very substantial mismatch," Pawlowski said.


You mean they make claims in direct contradiction to the observations? Say it ain't so GIGO...

they could not reproduce the findings made in the respective papers.


Falsification!

"There's a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity"


Ruh roh...
MrPressure
Jun 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cacogen
5 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2014
There is no pulling force at all!

curving space is god which is not exist!

Eternal movement and movement is always pushing force!

Eternal recycling!

Onesimpleprinciple.com

:)


What are you blathering about?
verkle
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2014
As I have said several times before, I think we know less than 1% about this universe and everything in it. To assume we have a current theory that can accurately describe the universe is foolhardy. Such theories will be constantly changed in the next hundreds of years.
Rustybolts
1.1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
Go figure. I'd be surprised if we have 1 percent correct. So is it better to teach our children the wrong universe or to tell them we don't know? There is some really bad theories when it comes to our universe and I for one believe it would be harmful to teach these bad theories to our children. Look how long it's going to take to convince people the big bang never happen. Most people still believe the universe is expanding. How many believe were the only life here. Major damage already done by stupid theories.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2014
There is some really bad theories when it comes to our universe and I for one believe it would be harmful to teach these bad theories to our children.

If they are better than 'random' then they're only relatively bad. And if you teach them correctly (i.e. pointing out WHY they aren't particularly good) then that is a valuable lesson in itself:
1) Theories aren't, by definition, true
2) Theories come in various qualities
3) There's still a lot of fun to be had expanding our knowledge.

To assume we have a current theory that can accurately describe the universe is foolhardy.

Since no one is claiminmg that - what's your beef? We have theories that are fairly good (i.e. pretty useful). And it is the nature of scientific work that these will get better over time.

Look how long it's going to take to convince people the big bang never happen.

If you have a better theory: present it. Just replacing a theory that has predictive value with nothing is a step backwards.
Sikla
Jun 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2014
The mismatch raises questions about the accuracy of the standard model of cosmology, which is the widely accepted paradigm for the origin and evolution of the universe


Another of many nails in the coffin of the standard theory.

As an evangelist of a crankology no one else accepts, you're not going to like how this gets resolved regardless. I understand though your urge to cry "na nyaa" as you've been so often on the receiving end.
arom
1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
"Standard galaxies must contain dark matter, but tidal galaxies cannot contain dark matter," said Pavel Kroupa, a co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Bonn in Germany.
"There's a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity"

It seems that the problem is not because the theory is wrong; instead it is because our misinterpretation of the dark energy/matter and maybe this could help to solve the problem …
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Tuxford
1 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2014
No surprise here. Look, the satellite galaxies generally originate from within the galaxy, having been ejected therefrom, and grown from within over time. But this notion is just too radical for convention wisdom to tolerate, so merger maniacs will continue to look for more patches. Incremental changes to the standard models will not get to the truth. A rethink is required.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2014
Look, the satellite galaxies generally originate from within the galaxy, having been ejected therefrom, and grown from within over time. But this notion is just too radical for convention wisdom to tolerate,

It's sort of hard to tolerate when you expect this statement to be taken on faith without proposing a (testable) mechanism.

That has nothing to do with how 'radical' it is. If something is totally radical but easily testable then it will be faster adopted than you can say "Cool".
no fate
2.9 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2014
Co-rotation of separate components is a feature of a magnetic structure.

"There's a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity"

If I had a nickel for every time I have said that....

"To assume we have a current theory that can accurately describe the universe is foolhardy. "

"Since no one is claiminmg that - what's your beef? We have theories that are fairly good (i.e. pretty useful). And it is the nature of scientific work that these will get better over time." - AP

Are you kidding? Anyone who points out flaws in the standard theory gets lambasted by the brat pack on this forum, regardless of how accurate what they say may be.

You do not have theories that are "fairly good", you have equations of motion which are "fairly good" and (pretty useful) and a flawed theory of what is governing the motion.

Stop using bar magnets as a field proxy. Understand complex magnetic structure. Claw your way into the 21st century.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2014
It's sort of hard to tolerate when you expect this statement to be taken on faith without proposing a (testable) mechanism.

Halton Arp produced such a mechanism...
http://www.halton...clusters

If something is totally radical but easily testable then it will be faster adopted than you can say "Cool".


Not even close to reality, especially when it contradicts the gatekeepers.

http://www.halton...ith_Fred

http://www.plasma...ared.pdf
Tuxford
1 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2014
LaViolette's model has passed a number of cosmological tests, but does not lend itself to standard physics tests. Other test methods are needed. So cosmologists must fall in line or be ridiculed. Look at the ridicule I have suffered here.

LaViolette used to the model to predict the Pioneer anomaly, for example. And he used terms which are considered taboo, such as etheric. So the ridicule keeps science from looking at it, similar in effect to the UFO propaganda propagated by our government to help keep science blinded by relativist nonsense.

The electro-gravitic research started by Brown, etc. in the 50's and by the aerospace industry of the time has gone black since then. And science has since bowed to the black hole, big bang nonsense. Instead, we have wasted billions on the NASA PR stunts. This has kept the electro-gravitic physics hidden from dangerous rouge nations, and confined largely to Area 51, etc. So the strategy has been effective, with no rogue nation threat.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2014
Look at the ridicule I have suffered here.


Are you bragging for that or complaining for it, or both Skippy?

So the ridicule keeps science from looking at it, similar in effect to the UFO propaganda propagated by our government to help keep science blinded by relativist nonsense.


Well then Skippy, you can have the ridicule from wearing the aluminum wrap hat or from wearing the silly looking pointy cap, you take your pick. But if you have the foolishment then you have to wear one or the other one.

The electro-gravitic research started by Brown, etc. in the 50's and by the aerospace industry of the time has gone black since then.


That one gets the silly looking pointy cap.

This has kept the electro-gravitic physics hidden from dangerous rouge nations, and confined largely to Area 51, etc.


This one gets the aluminum wrap hat. They aren't free you know, you going to wear them out soon if you keep switching in the same postem.
supamark23
not rated yet Jun 11, 2014
Something I've long wondered, but not enough to try and tackle the math... how much of what we call dark energy is due to relativistic time dialation? The universe is not homogenous, and there are vast voids with very low density of matter, and therefore a lot less gravity than in galaxy clusters and filaments - relativity says time should appear to move faster in the voids from our frame of reference, which leads to the conclusion that space time is expanding faster in the voids than in the filaments/galaxy clusters. Has this been investigated, and has anyone done the math?
Wren
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2014
@Rustybolts:
I've sat in classrooms where high school kids are taught science, i.e. standard theories. It's painful to see how rote learning and the absence of real questions turns kids off to science. I think that's one reason so many American adults reject science.

If we could pose questions rather than pretend to have all the answers, I think we could do a much better job. Look at Evan Camp's presentation (https://www.youtu...fw-Ckb8) on teaching "unsettled science" to middle school kids. He poses two models and asks students to gather data to support one or the other. It makes them curious and it makes them observant.

no fate
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2014
Supamark: The paper is called "Directional emissions from a moving light source". It can be found at physicsessays.org but is paywalled.

The PHd who wrote it drew similar conclusions to the authors above regarding gravity a few years ago.
OdinsAcolyte
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2014
It is fairly obvious our ideas are wrong. Mystery makes life fun.
Nobody ever knows everything but so many think they do.
supamark23
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
no fate - that paper primarily discusses relativity and inertial reference frames, which I'm already familiar with (it's available through a non-paywall site btw). I'm curious if anyone has worked out what effect, if any, the density/gravity differences in filaments/clusters vs. voids has on our perception of the expansion of the universe and if that is a contributor to what we call dark energy as space should appear to expand more rapidly in voids from our inertial ref frame in the Virgo supercluster.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2014
Halton Arp produced such a mechanism...
http://www.halton...clusters

Funny. I can't find a word about the mechanism in the article you cited. He just repeats over and over 'ejected this' and 'ejected that'...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2014
This kind of papers are very tiresome. While making extraordinary claims they are motivated by an agenda and hence present less than ordinary evidence.

A quick browsing reveal that they reject current alternatives. Such as finding analogous structures in LCDM simulations (!), simply because of improved observations and not tested inconsistency. After that they feel free to use an idealized statistic filter to ask for _better results_ than observed, they would have their unlikely tidal strips several times per galaxy.

If I were a cosmologist, this would go onto the trash heap as TL;DR. They are pattern searching, and badly, so it is bordering on pseudoscience. And the catastrophic mechanism is based on unlikely events.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2014
[ctd]

Notably, even if they would have been correct, and indeed the mechanism is plausible (since cluster collisions are _seen_ to strip dark matter from luminous matter in close interactions which is the complicated result they need) if not their observations, they are trying to wedge open a gap in a model that closed much larger ones. Before the standard cosmology stars were older than some measures of the universe age, and the mass needed to get the flat, observed universe were both finetuned and ~ 5 times too small.

So, a tedious press release, signifying nothing, but having to be digested. :-/

Plus, 'alternative' nutter sharks think the poorly brushed on red coat drippings smell like blood in the water. Well, at least they show that they have zero understanding of cosmology, being shark automatons, so pointing out their absence of sense becomes extremely easy. =D
no fate
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2014
no fate - that paper primarily discusses relativity and inertial reference frames, I'm curious if anyone has worked out what effect, if any, the density/gravity differences in filaments/clusters vs. voids has on our perception of the expansion of the universe and if that is a contributor to what we call dark energy as space should appear to expand more rapidly in voids from our inertial ref frame in the Virgo supercluster.


The paper quantifies time dialation as a perceptual misnomer, an effect that occurs between two reference frames, a stationary one (home of the measurement) and one in motion. The same 2 IRF's viewed from a third IRF (home of the measurement) show no dilation. However after rereading your initial question and applying the conclusion in the paper, the answer to your first question is: all of it.... and nobody has done the math.
no fate
1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
This kind of papers are very tiresome. While making extraordinary claims they are motivated by an agenda and hence present less than ordinary evidence.

A quick browsing reveal that they reject current alternatives. Such as finding analogous structures in LCDM simulations (!), simply because of improved observations and not tested inconsistency.
[tbctd]


As I said...anyone who points out flaws in the standard theory. Of course their merger/collision scenario is almost as bad (it can't be pretty using a DM particle), that doesn't change the flaw their proposal attempts to address. What structure in LCDM Cosmology is analgous to a dwarf galaxy? Oh yeah...a dwarf galaxy...you have another one?

Dogmatic traditionalists who believe 100 year old models stand the test of time and ever more detailed observations are the ones who have the most difficult time with accepting the physical reality we observe with modern techniques.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2014
Dogmatic traditionalists who believe 100 year old models stand the test of time and ever more detailed observations are the ones who have the most difficult time with accepting the physical reality we observe with modern techniques.

Torby Larsen is one of the worst, but they are rampant in these threads.

Jantoo
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2014
While making extraordinary claims they are motivated by an agenda and hence present less than ordinary evidence.
I do agree.. IMO the acceptance of L-CDM in mainstream science community already passed the inflection point, because this study doesn't actually violate the Big Bang cosmology, yet it's still interpreted so. The recent discussion about BICEP2 finding illustrates this conceptual shift too.
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
Am I the only one here who understands that spiral galaxies spin outward, not inward? Matter gets thrown out from the centre of a spinning point source. Doesn't everybody know that? Cosmos got it wrong on the last episode of this season, too. I have turned that show off in bemused detachment more often that I have sat through an entire episode of that show, believe it or not.
supamark23
5 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2014
Am I the only one here who understands that spiral galaxies spin outward, not inward? Matter gets thrown out from the centre of a spinning point source. Doesn't everybody know that? Cosmos got it wrong on the last episode of this season, too. I have turned that show off in bemused detachment more often that I have sat through an entire episode of that show, believe it or not.


Does the Earth spin outward from the Sun? No? Then why would the stars in a galaxy move from a stable orbit outwards?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2014
As I have said several times before, I think we know less than 1% about this universe and everything in it. To assume we have a current theory that can accurately describe the universe is foolhardy. Such theories will be constantly changed in the next hundreds of years.
But youre a religionist who knows absolutely nothing about science whatsoever. And so your opinion on science issues has no merit no matter how many times you offer it.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2014
Does the Earth spin outward from the Sun? No? Then why would the stars in a galaxy move from a stable orbit outwards?


For whatever reason, they do in the Milky Way. Are we unique?

http://phys.org/n...ays.html
yyz
5 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2014
"Am I the only one here who understands that spiral galaxies spin outward, not inward?"

No, you're probably one of many people who are ignorant of the fact that spiral galaxies can spin both ways. For example, the spiral galaxy NGC 4622 has leading spiral arms that precede the rotation of the galaxy rather than follow:

http://arxiv.org/.../0211002

http://en.wikiped...NGC_4622

You should also realize that prograde rotation of the arms in spiral galaxies does not "throw" material away from the center of the galaxy but rather is indicative of density waves traveling through the intergalactic medium. These density waves can either be prograde or retrograde( as in the case of NGC 4622).
Jantoo
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2014
Goodbye big bang, hello big silence Article is paywalled, but its outcome is evident from the title. For such title most of people would be banned for PSEUDOSCIENCE from here...
Dug
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2014
As some one said above - "we probably know less than1% of universe". I'm guessing it's much lower than that - and especially considering most of what we see is extremely out of date observation due to the speed of light in transmitting the observation. Imagine a computer model with no certainty beyond 1% of the information used. Such a model can produce nothing better than a "computer based" SWAG - and that would be a generous assessment. We are such an arrogant and pretentious species.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
Mapping the universe? Wow, who just made this hideous claim to speak as if they already got what is in our universe! After a less than 1% understanding of the celestial world someone has finally come up for a big paycheck. So where is the nearest McDonalds in the Milkyway galaxy?

There are loads of crap opinions in science section, and its in a daily doze.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
How long until another comes up with their own standard model?
One question... Anyone gone to the ends of the universe? Nah, don't answer it, science this days are more of guessing game than real intelligent scientific module.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
is not to threat the job of people, who are taking money for it

Oh sweet lord...you don't know the first thing about scientists.

Listen, it's very simple: Scientists are smart. They have gone through university and most have gotten at least one further degree. How many job applications do you think someone like that has to send out to get a well paying job (Hint: the answer is 'one'). Instead the work as researchers (which pays awfully) at full time plus weekends.
Get the hint. Researhcers are NOT in it for the money...or when was the last time you saw a researcher on his yacht or driving anything but a beat up car? Right. Never.

Scientists aren't in this for the money - but to get one of those really radical ideas. The difference is: THEY can distinguish between radical ideas that actually make sense and bunk (you know: because of having an 'education').
Whereas you - lacking any kind of eduication - think anything that is bunk is a radical idea because it 'sounds cool'.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
At the moment, when they censor relevant opinion from public forum, they just act as stupidly

Why would you think a scientist would hang out in a public forum to discuss science? They have PEERS around them all the time for a much higher level of discussion. Teachers don't go to kindergarten to discuss teaching methods.

They wouldn't do their job as a hobby (like me, for example).

At the pay they are getting they ARE doing their job as a hobby. They CHOSE this job over any other, vastly superior (in terms of money and perks)
And no..YOU are not doing science. If you think that you're deep in la-la-land.
You're reading science porn (physorg, Scientific American, etc.) That has NOTHING to do with science (much like reading Sports Illustrated has nothing to do with being a profesional athlete. And much like you won't find any professional athletes trying to get information about their sport from Sports Illustrated).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
LOL, you even have no idea, which education I've.

Given that sentence alone - I could make an educated guess. None whatsoever.

But you've already told here, you quit already with scientific carrier. The really good scientists don't do that.

The reason I quit was simple:
I have a desire for financial safety to a certain degree (i.e. I like to have a plan B in case something happens. I like to OWN the place I live in).
That is not compatible with a scientific career unless you want to become a professor. Choosing that track means that you drop out of the actual 'doing' of science, as most professors are too caught up in managing postdocs, PhD students, teaching obligations, grant acquisition, and the nitty gritty of running part of an institute. That didn't sound appealing (I have experience with most of the above, so that's not just a gut feeling).

So I sent out an application. It's boring but it pays easily triple what I got before. And I didn't even haggle.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
@ Zephir-Skippy would you make your mind what your name is. Now you change him six or five times every day Cher. You going to run out of ways to bunch the letters together if you don't slow down. You already got to where you having to pick really crazy things to call your self that sound like made up words. If you having trouble remembering everyday what your interweb name is you can ask your computer to remember him for you. That's what I do.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
Now you change him six or five times every day
This is another problem of dull people: the names aren't important for Socratic discussion, only the ideas and their arguments are. Honestly, I don't think, your real name is Uncle Ira neither.


Well Zephir-Skippy I will tell you the truth Neg. I did make up the Uncle part, that is not my real name no. But how you going to have good discussions if you spend most of your time trying come up new ideas for the names? So now you going to be again moving to the Socratic-Skippy for the name? At least this time you give the warning to watch him for the change.
Uncle Ira
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
@ P.S. for you Zephir-now-Socratic-Skippy. You still don't answer why it is that you change your name so much. Six or five times every two days is to much. Seven times now if you count the Socratic-Skippy for today.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
Every scientist has such a desire.

The guys from the institues which I was at, which I still hang out with, are split on that opinion. Most have left to pursue lucrative jobs. The ones that remain are usually either already professors by this time or on that track. Two don't seem to mind staying postdoc basically forever. (Having come from the Ukraine and Poland respectively they are used to getting by on very little money. No car, small apartment for them and their families, no holidays except visiting relatives, no insurance, ...)

The only way how to prove the opposite is doing research for free, everything else is irrelevant.

That's idiotic. Even researchers and their families have to eat.

It's irrelevant what you think, what I'm doing here

Oh boy. If you think you are engaged in science HERE then you have crossed the insanity horizon and are quickly accelerating. That proves it: You have no clue what science is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
when was the last time you saw a researcher on his yacht or driving anything but a beat up car? Right. Never.
Wow. The average salary for a top university science professor in Europe is $151,633.
http://www.the-sc...-Survey/

-Patents and publications can add significantly to this figure. Scientists in industry in management positions can earn even more than this. And of course this is much incentive to protect their position by directing work toward their dept using politics, personal and professional connections, incentives from big business, etc.

WHERE do you get these goofy notions from? TV?

"Gozo Tsujimoto, a pharmaceutical scientist and former Kyoto University professor, was arrested on Tuesday by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office for accepting bribes"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
"A new breed of academic is joining the ranks of the super-rich as universities embrace the commercial benefits of going into business. More than 30 of Oxford University's dons are now multimillionaires and rival academic institutions are gearing up to follow suit."

Wow. Are you naive.
No car, small apartment for them and their families, no holidays except visiting relatives, no insurance, ...)
You should know that anecdotal evidence is rarely reliable. Why dont you try the internet? It's right here:
https://www.googl...s_rd=ssl
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2014
The average salary for a top university science professor in Europe is $151,633.

And you know how many get that position? That's like being a CEO in a company.

This article sums it up pretty nicely:
http://www.academ...985.html
That young scientists choose to go into industry is also due to rocky qualification paths, uncertain career prospects and the often temporary contracts in public research institutions. "Only a handful manage to gain one of the few professorships or rise to the top of a research institution; the others simply remain research assistants for a very long time",

...and as a research assitsant you're on the below average tail of the salary distribution (average researcher pay is 36,700 euros. Before taxes. STARTING average salary in the industry is 50-56k)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2014
Patents and publications can add significantly to this figure.

Erm: Newsflash: You get nothing from publications (mostly YOU have to pay extra if you want your publications' graphics to be in color or somesuch newfangled stuff). You can write books. But making money on a book where the amount of people who actually understand what you write is in the low hundreds is an iffy proposition at best. (BTW: you don't get paid as a researcher to write books. That would be a spare time activity in any case. I know few professors who can even spell the words 'spare time').
Patents? No. They belong to the institute - not you. If you want to see cash then you have to go into the industry (or start up your own company on the side). But neither pays you for doing research.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
"Am I the only one here who understands that spiral galaxies spin outward, not inward?"

No, you're probably one of many people who are ignorant of the fact that spiral galaxies can spin both ways. For example, the spiral galaxy NGC 4622 has leading spiral arms that precede the rotation of the galaxy rather than follow:

http://arxiv.org/.../0211002

You should also realize that prograde rotation of the arms in spiral galaxies does not "throw" material away from the center of the galaxy but rather is indicative of density waves traveling through the intergalactic medium. These density waves can either be prograde or retrograde( as in the case of NGC 4622).


So far, out of a litany of 47 posts, this poster has been just about the only one who has actually furthered the concept of coming to a Science site & engaged in discussing the science of the subject. He did not engage in ridicule of others as Unc-Ira, Ant-Phy, etc, do on a persistent basis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
And you know how many get that position? That's like being a CEO in a company.
If you visit the page I posted you will see that assistant/associate profs earn between $85000 and $100000, on average. I bet there are 1000s of them.

There is no date on your article. I bet its old.

I bet this salary spread is comparable to professionals with equivalent educations in engineering, law, medicine, etc.

And opportunity exists for the brightest and most ambitious, just as with any other industry.
http://www.online...e-world/
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2014
Now you change him six or five times every day
This is another problem of dull people: the names aren't important for Socratic discussion, only the ideas and their arguments are. Honestly, I don't think, your real name is Uncle Ira neither.


Well Zephir-Skippy I will tell you the truth Neg. I did make up the Uncle part, that is not my real name no. But how you going to have good discussions if you spend most of your time trying come up new ideas for the names? So now you going to be again moving to the Socratic-Skippy for the name? At least this time you give the warning to watch him for the change.


........why don't you try indulging yourself with the "science" of the topic rather than engaging in personality disputes which is all you've ever offer in your myriads of worthless postings......
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
Erm: Newsflash: You get nothing from publications
Newsflash::: guys like this earn millions from books and articles (publications) directly connected to their academic positions.

"In 2011 it looked like the scientist's spectacular career was winding down. Suddenly, he was back on top. People With Money reports on Wednesday (June 11) that Hawking is the highest-paid scientist in the world, pulling in an astonishing $46 million between May 2013 and May 2014, a nearly $20 million lead over his closest competition."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
Now you change him six or five times every day
This is another problem of dull people: the names aren't important for Socratic discussion, only the ideas and their arguments are. Honestly, I don't think, your real name is Uncle Ira neither.


Well Zephir-Skippy I will tell you the truth Neg. I did make up the Uncle part, that is not my real name no. But how you going to have good discussions if you spend most of your time trying come up new ideas for the names? So now you going to be again moving to the Socratic-Skippy for the name? At least this time you give the warning to watch him for the change.


........why don't you try indulging yourself with the "science" of the topic rather than engaging in personality disputes which is all you've ever offer in your myriads of worthless postings......
Well if you don't like the atmosphere here why don't you go breathe somewhere else? Air is everywhere... benni-with-an-i...
Uncle Ira
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
So far, out of a litany of 47 posts, this poster has been just about the only one who has actually furthered the concept of coming to a Science site & engaged in discussing the science of the subject. He did not engage in ridicule of others as Unc-Ira, Ant-Phy, etc, do on a persistent basis.


So far Bennie-Skippy I don't see any science talking in that message of yours right there no. And that is after the 52 or 51 postums. That ridiculing stuffs, what you mean Cher? Is that something like telling peoples to go and learn the first year thermaldynamics? And telling peoples because they can't make the different equations that they are stupid? I STILL wait for you to tell us something about the different equations so we know you actually understands them. Is this ridiculing stuffs something like telling peoples because they work on the tow/push boats they got to be muddy and stupid? Skippy, sit down and shut up, but you can keep wearing the silly looking pointy cap.
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
........why don't you try indulging yourself with the "science" of the topic rather than engaging in personality disputes which is all you've ever offer in your myriads of worthless postings......


You still have not said the quasi-spherical Einstein different equation thing yet today. That's the one I was looking forward to, you save him for later Cher or do I have to wait until some other day to get that one again?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
Whereas the insightful ideas are censored from everywhere
@sikla-zeph
insightful ideas are welcome, zeph, it is the pseudoscience and crackpot BS that is censored, or did you not read that part of the comment guidelines?
Comments that will be deleted include: pseudoscience theories. spam. off topic ramblings, rants, or pointless verbiage
which defines most of your posts
They wouldn't do their job as a hobby
wrong. most would and do. I still do my old job(s) as a hobby
you even have no idea, which education I've
but one can make an educated guess by your fervent support of pseudoscience that you DO NOT have a degree in physics
you don't know the first thing about scientists
@antialias_physorg
it's zephir... of COURSE he doesn't know the first thing about scientists!
Teachers don't go to kindergarten to discuss teaching methods
I LOVE THIS LINE! LMFAO
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2014
guys like this earn millions from books and articles (publications) directly connected to their academic positions.

Care to cite any who write books and earn millions AS PART OF THEIR SCIENCE JOB on institute time...not in their spare time. (That's private enterprise).

$46 million between May 2013 and May 2014, a nearly $20 million lead over his closest competition."

That should pretty much tell you what researchers make who are not in the public eye (which are almost all of them). Are there people who make money and are scientists...? Sure. Is it likely. Not really. Is it the reason anyone chose the job?
"I'll slave 4+ years at uni, 4+ years at grad school, x+ years as postdoc, y+ years as junoir professor, z+ years as senior profesor to get to be head of an institute and then maybe I'll write a book and become famnous and earn the big bucks".

You have to be out of your friggin' mind if you think anyone goes into science with that train of thought.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
The labeling some opinion as a "BS", "nonsense" or "pseudoscience" without arguments
@zephir
FACT: already been through the arguments with you, including the proof (which you have ZERO) so your argument here is not valid
logical matter of fact arguments actually counts here
FACT:when you actually have some, they are not downvoted, which means that if you are being banned, you are NOT posting logic or factual comments
violating the very basis of scientific method
FACT:this is not a peer review, this is a public popular science site with comments section, which you usually hijack for trolling/pseudoscience purposes and then get banned.
now THAT is logical, as well as empirical.
and I can predict that your new persona will eventually be banned for the same things: promoting pseudoscience

being open is NOT the same is supporting everything.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
The comment guideline rule "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)"

Did you follow the link to pseudoscience? Did you read it? I suggest you do so.
Even you must admit that it describes what you try to push to a 't'.
If not: be specific about where you think the definitin diverges.

Let's see you try to make a logical arguemnt.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
Sorry, the obligatory "RTFM" is not a logical matter of fact argument, but just another fallacy
@zeph
no, you are wrong. In a comment section with finite ability to comment, a link or a reference to a link is a valid argument. Posting the argument here would only lengthen the thread unnecessarily, especially as it is the posters obligation to abide by the rules of the comment guidelines, therefore AA_P's argument is not only valid, but very relevant to your posts

You do NOT abide by the rules most of the time, which is WHY you keep getting banned. This is NOT about singling out you for any purpose of censorship. It is about YOU not being able to abide by the rules, and therefore suffering the punishment.

considering that this site is EXTREMELY lenient and the moderation is minimal... it speaks volumes about your continued account deletions.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sikla
Jun 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
The Socratic discussion is not so free league, as you probably believe.


@ Socratic-Skippy, what is this stuff you are taking about today podna? It is making less sense to me than your usual stuffs. As far ol Ira knows the nice physorg people still let peoples discuss here for free. Are you saying you think they should start charging for making the discussion? Trust me Cher, it will cost you a lot more then it will cost me, or any other person I can't think of.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2014
You're all are actually serving the elaborated strategy here.


Awww, Zeph, seriously, can you see my little violin?
Uncle Ira
2.9 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
You're all are actually serving the elaborated strategy here.


Awww, Zeph, seriously, can you see my little violin?


@ Gawad-Skippy do you know what he is talking about today? I am having more troubles with it than I usually ever do me. And he said up there a few places up the page that he is not using the Zephir-Skippy anymore. Now he wants to be the Socratic-Skippy whatever that is.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
considering that this site is EXTREMELY lenient and the moderation is minimal


Nope, it's a strategy.

You think any scientists gives a rat's behind what is posted in the comments section of a popular science blurb based on a journalist's understanding of a scientific paper? Really? You find that logical?

Ad hominem ahead:
No...you are not being banned because of some conspiracy. You're banned because you're an obnoxious - religiously fanatic - douche with a 'theory' that any 5-year old can pick apart.

That you see neither the flaws in your theory nor your character is somewhat astounding (but I guess lack of ability to perceive one pretty much necessitates a lack of ability to perceive the other)
Gawad
4.5 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
@ Gawad-Skippy do you know what he is talking about today?

Uncle, today the Zeph Master Puppet has decided he's feeling particularly lonely, sad and persecuted. So he's trolling us with a woe-is-me-I'm-so-misunderstood and life-is-so-unfair BS line of clap-trap. As if every time he pulls out his little keyboard to post on here (which is something like 50 times a day) we're supposed to engage him in "logical scientific discussion" on the same tired topic where he has been disproven a thousand times before and banned over over a hundred times before, but is just too dumb to remember from one time to the next.

Sigh. Basically, he's voicing his frustration that we're not willing to waste our time playing with him.

Měl by jít ven a nadýchat se čerstvého vzduchu. Užijte si pilsner na terase někde;)
ViperSRT3g
4 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2014
An article is posted stating that models do not match the observations. And then all the crazies come out of the wood works.

Come on people, it's like freaking out that you couldn't predict when the jenga blocks would fall before someone removes a block. Then you scream that the jenga blocks are held up by anti-gravity.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2014
As if every time he pulls out his little keyboard to post on here (which is something like 50 times a day) we're supposed to engage him in "logical scientific discussion"


Yeah I knew it was a lot like 50 times every day. That is why I can not understand that he wants the nice peoples at physorg to stop the new Socratic-Skippy from discussing things for free. He must have a lot of money and maybe was hoping it would thin down the competition some. That's the only thing I could think of.

MÄ�l by jít ven a nadýchat se ÄŤerstvého vzduchu. UĹ�ijte si pilsner na terase nÄ�kde;)


That part I don't know what it is.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
Tried google translate (pretty cool that google autodetects the language (in this case Czech)):
"He should go out and get some fresh air. Enjoy pilsner on a terrace somewhere"
(Though I guess it's shouldn't be 'pilsner' but 'beer'...then again I don't know a single word in czech, and since pilsen type of beer originated in the Czech republic (Plzn) it could be correct )
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
AS PART OF THEIR SCIENCE JOB on institute time...not in their spare time. (That's private enterprise)
Why is this a requirement? Hawking capitalizes on the work he does as an academic by writing books about what he does, and makes millions.

Many professions have similar such opportunities and perks which are the equivalent of salary. I knew an engr who built a boat from materials he got from DuPont shops. Just like stock options.

Or there's this guy

"Bruce Levine was taken aback.

"The award-winning history professor and author of five books assigned his students at the University of Cincinnati to buy his book "Half Slave & Half Free: The Roots of Civil War."

"When one of his students objected that he was taking advantage of the class, Levine, who was making 10 cents a copy for the 30 copies in the class, couldn't believe the student's outrage."

-It's a living. BTW profs in your comment above are not CEO-equivalent. That would be university presidents.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
Are there people who make money and are scientists...? Sure. Is it likely. Not really. Is it the reason anyone chose the job?
You still got that huge STUMP of a mental block.

"Wow. The AVERAGE salary for a top university science professor in Europe is $151,633." 11/13

"If you visit the page I posted you will see that assistant/associate profs earn between $85000 and $100000, on average. I bet there are 1000s of them." 2013

-Here's one you ought to know:

"Computer Science (CS)Rank: 8
Starting salary: $59,800
Mid-career salary: $102,000"

-These numbers indicate a GOOD LIVING by any standards. The local Mercedes dealer will even give them a pro discount.
and then maybe I'll write a book and become famnous and earn the big bucks".
Most of them are very proactive. Work is easy for them. They already know they'll need to publish to retain tenure. And their heros are hawking and Krauss.

Of course they will want to discover the GUT and make millions writing about it.
toddjnsn
not rated yet Jun 12, 2014
1) Theories aren't, by definition, true


That is not a correct statement. It does not go "Hypothesis->Theory->Fact" as far as levels of validity. Theory is an Explanation, so I say...

2) Theories come in various qualities


This is correct. Although the chain does go in that direction, a Theory an be totally Validated and still remain a Theory, and it can be blatantly False and still remain a Theory. In essence, a "mere Theory" is what you're describing, implying that it isn't Validated.

A proven theory is a Validated one. I think we should not put the Validated ones on the shelves and look at it as the gospel truth as the baseline which could never be altered in any way once new nooks & crannies about the Universe are revealed.

In relation to what we observe around us, in our vacinity, in our solar system, to the level that affects what we interact with and our observations, and in what we can observe in other solar systems, the Theory of Gravity is Validated.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2014
Patents? No. They belong to the institute - not you. If you want to see cash then you have to go into the industry (or start up your own company on the side). But neither pays you for doing research
No, researchers own the patents.

"Patents safeguard intellectual property. Just as every book author has a copyright, an inventor of a technical/scientific innovation can apply for patent protection. The author is entitled to royalties, the inventor to remuneration. According to the German Law on Employee Inventions, this is split between the employer and the employee. The university receives a portion for providing the space, equipment and organisation that make the invention possible. The inventor or inventors receive 30% of all earnings – without deduction of costs. The inventors are cited in the patent by name in perpetuity, even if the university is the applicant." Heidelberg university

-I've posted this before.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2014
Considering recent work that shows Galactic Black holes as having magnetic fields at least as strong or stronger than the gravitational pull:

http://phys.org/n...ack.html

this would seem to me that not only do the black holes have a stronger pull than expected, but so would all of the stars and planets, which we know to mainly be magnetic as well (some small bodies lose their magnetics over time) and we also know that space is not at all empty, being filled with either cold, warm or extremely hot gasses. We know there are huge amounts of hot gasses released from black hole jetting and from novae and supernovae and that, as we can see with solar winds, a great deal of this is actually stripped ions, or, in simpler terms, plasma, which also carries electrical current and thus magnetic fields.

Suddenly the data is pointing a lot closer towards the Electric/Magnetic/Plasma Universe theory and keeps shooting down the 'Standard Model'.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2014
Hawking capitalizes on the work he does as an academic by writing books about what he does, and makes millions.

Your argument boils down to: "A civil servant writes a book based on his experiences and can makes millions off it - therefore all civil servants became civil servants for the money". Does that make sense on any kind of level? Even to someone like you?

assistant/associate profs earn between $85000 and $100000

Which is vastly underpaid if you go to compareable jobs in the industry. Being Prof is a mid to top level management job. 85-100k is the kind of cash an average software engineer makes as you rightly point out. News flash. Being a software engineer is a skill most any PhD student has...and it's not even the main skill of his/her job. By that standards they are VASTLY underpaid.

Work is easy for them

Oh boy. That's so wrong I don't even know what to do first: laugh or pity you for your lack of connection to reality.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2014
And you need to keep in mind: becoming a prof is something you get to be late in your career (we're talking 15+ years after others have been starting to earn real cash in their jobs). So even if they, after all that time, make a comparable salary to a programmer they are WAY behind on the 'becoming rich' part.

Scientists aren't stupid. If they wanted to become rich they know that science isn't the thing to choose with the skills they have. (I've got two friends who took their math PhDs to Deutsche Bank and being a freelance advisor for bankings respectively.
They are raking in the big bucks like you wouldn't believe (the latter is thinking about retiring before he hits 45 because he's got more than enough cash by now)
Sikla
Jun 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2014
"A civil servant writes a book based on his experiences and can makes millions off it - therefore all civil servants became civil servants for the money"
People often become civil servants for the money. Look at Kwamee Kilpatrick. Your argument is 'since I knew a few scientists who drove around in old ratty cars, then I must assume most of them do.' But Ive shown you that salaries and compensations can rival that of most other professions. And this compensation includes whatever they may want to do to capitalize on their position and experience, including patents, which they do draw royalties from, and publications.
becoming a prof is something you get to be late in your career
"A tenured professor at a doctoral university, for example, on average earned his or her doctorate at the age of 31.2"

"Computer Science (not engr)
Starting salary: $59,800
MID_CAREER SALARY: $102,000" (45yo)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2014
vastly underpaid if you go to compareable jobs in the industry
"Payscale Majors by Salary Potential 2012-2013"

9 Computer Science $58,400-$100,000
10 Statistics $49,300-$99,500
11 Physics $51,200-$99,100
(out of a list of 130)
http://www.paysca...you-back

-Im sorry, youre just wrong.
Being Prof is a mid to top level management job
Not according to them. In response to a bill to declare them managers so they couldnt form a union, one prof weighs in:

"So, under this bill, which has yet to pass the state House of Representatives, I am now management in my university. Given that, I am tomorrow going to raise my and my fellow professors' salaries... I'll be either laughed at or arrested. Why? Because the faculty of a university is not management. Yes, we can make changes to curriculum, but that's about it."

-Wrong again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2014
Now a management position (department head) can earn you around $120k on average. Plus perks.
http://www.salary...d=246156

-Now if you are a university president you can earn $3.3M
http://www.huffin...229.html

-And if youre "82-year-old Hall of Famer Joe Paterno, Penn State's highest-paid employee, made more than $1.03 million in 2008."
I've got two friends who took their math PhDs to Deutsche Bank and being a freelance advisor
More anecdotal info. I think I will discount it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2014
"Computer Science (not engr)
Starting salary: $59,800
MID_CAREER SALARY: $102,000" (45yo)
@otto
I just saw this and I have a question, please. does this include all computer science positions? is it spelled out how this is broken down and who is included?

the reason I ask is: because someone who is A+ and MCSE Certified might fall under that category and be included in the numbers while it has nothing to do with science at all...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2014
Ah stumpy you know the answer to that.
https://www.google.com/

I googled the text and saw many pages which repeated those figures.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2014
Ah stumpy you know the answer to that.
https://www.google.com/
I googled the text and saw many pages which repeated those figures.
@otto
I found what I was looking for on your previous posted link here: http://www.paysca...you-back

in the methodology section: http://www.paysca...hodology
Only employees who possess a bachelor's degree and no higher degrees are included
I didn't see it at first. I was too rushed. apologies.
George_Rajna
Jun 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2014
Be an Artist. You, too, could make 50-100 dollars a week...
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2014
https://www.academia.edu/4610165/The_Accelerating_Universe


@ The Different-George-Skippy what does the video of the drunk on a lawnmower have to do with the dwarf galaxies? Did you push the wrong button for him?
Jantoo
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2014
As I already explained (and was deleted for it), this study actually doesn't threat the standard L-CDM model of cosmology, because this model already considers the dark matter into its calculation (you see, it's the "DM" characters in its name). The dark matter was revealed by Oort and Zwicky before eighty years just by rotational curves of stars at the perimeter of galaxy. So now we just add the satellite dwarf galaxies into observational support of Dark Matter, that's all. The epicycle model of standard cosmology has already this epicycle added into it. Nevertheless it's apparent, that the preference of L-CDM model in mainstream media already passed its inflexion point, because now the new findings are presented as its falsification automatically, despite they actually don't work so (at least not in apparent way).
Jantoo
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2014
Ironically, under certain line of reasoning the rotational curves of stars and satellite galaxies may even support the mainstream cosmology, based on expanding universe model. As MOND theory stated, the cold dark matter manifest itself as a weak deceleration, the value of which is very close to product of Hubble constant and speed of light. How the hell it is possible? Well, you can imagine, that the light and gravity cannot catch up the space-time expansion at large distances, which leads into additional curvature of space-time around its sources. So that the substantial portion of dark matter can be explained just with consequential consideration of space-time expansion into gravity models.
The situation when the seemingly contradicting observation supports the model at another scale is anything new for me. For example the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR contradicts the expanding Universe model at small scale - but at larger scale it poses a problem for steady state universe model too.
TimLong2001
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2014
The attempt to portray the background red shift as a Doppler shift has led to the postulation of a multitude of "fixes" that keep misleading mainstream theorists. A photon mass, however miniscule, will dictate a gradual loss of energy resulting in a red shift, as observed. The binary photon structure resulting in the interaction of opposite charges of equal mass satisfies both the requirements of supersymmetry and the self-propagation of the photon. (A "finding" of the LANL plasma research facility, a project completed in the late 1980s, described the interaction of opposite charges as acting at right-angles which induces a spin. This, coupled with the attraction of opposite charges, creates a balance that locks the two charges into a specific orbital radius manifesting as a wave.)
See "The Mass of the Photon," by Alfred Goldhaber and Michael Nieto in the May 1976 issue of Scientific American.
George_Rajna
Jun 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2014
Sterile Neutrino and Dark Matter: https://www.acade...k_Matter


That Lawnmower-Steve-Skippy sure is the funny man him. What they have to do with the dwarf galaxies? But I do like the Steve-Skippys lawnmower videos.

He is from down here in Louisiana him. But I don't know him personal, but he is famous down here. Seems like everybody got the good Steve-Skippy story. I got links to four or three more of them too but if you search for them on your own be choosy and picky about them, because there are some out there that are copying cat them, they aren't good like the real Steve.
Jantoo
not rated yet Jun 15, 2014
Sterile Neutrino and Dark Matter
LOL, these asian spammers are getting increasingly inventive: they don't hesitate to rename their essay completely including the title inside before throwing their stuff again into particular forum. All the rest indeed remains the very same - and it's not about sterile neutrinos at all.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2014
Sterile Neutrino and Dark Matter
LOL, these asian spammers are getting increasingly inventive: they don't hesitate to rename their essay completely including the title inside before throwing their stuff again into particular forum. All the rest indeed remains the very same - and it's not about sterile neutrinos at all.


@ Socratic-Skippy. The links go the Lawnmower-Steve-Skippy videos. They are not about the Asians no. They are about Steve-Skippy driving drunk on his lawnmowers and the police catching him on it with the dashboard and webnet cameras. He is from Louisiana, not the Asia. Didn't you watch them to the end?
Jantoo
not rated yet Jun 15, 2014
Actually I didn't bother to watch the beginning. Regarding the ethnographic difference Asia from Louisiana, the apology is on my side. Although I presume, the immigration will wipe out the difference anyway.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2014
Actually I didn't bother to watch the beginning. Regarding the ethnographic difference Asia from Louisiana, the apology is on my side. Although I presume, the immigration will wipe out the difference anyway.


They are real funny if you have not watched them a 100 or 90 times like I have done again so much. The Association of Parrish Sheriffs took up the collection to try to get him to move to Texas or Arkansas but not to Mississippi because that is still close enough to Louisiana for him to get back here on his lawnmower and they don't want him crossing across the long bridges over the Pontchartrain.
Shootist
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2014
There is no pulling force at all!

curving space is god which is not exist!

Eternal movement and movement is always pushing force!

Eternal recycling!

Onesimpleprinciple.com

:)


DUDE! Engrish, man speak Engrish.
eric96
1 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2014
It's pretty clear that normal gravity cannot hold galaxies together since the distances are too great which would imply not only a much larger black hole than what is seen in Sagittarius A, but also could explain the consistent velocity of all stars in the milky way and abroad (further objects should travel slower if gravity as we know it were holding the galaxy together, but this is not the case.)

The fact that all stars in the milky way travel at the same speed means the system had everything in it from the begin, and dark matter simply prevents it from coming apart. The how defies all known physics. Its as if dark matter creates an orbit, but dark matter itself has no mass therefore the speed at which things rotate does not change with distance from center. Good luck detecting something massless. Dark Matter is gravity without mass. So what else is there, cha ching, energy. Dark matter is really energy and the easiest model to visualize is worm holes.
eric96
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2014
The milky way is constantly receiving a **, haha.
But only slight suction, and this suction only works if the fabric of space is not entirely empty.
In fact the extent of the suction sufficient to hold all matter in the milky way, you should be able to calculate the mass of what is sucked (the fabric of space has a tiny mass nearly imperceptible) and the sucker.
Sikla
Jun 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sikla
Jun 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob Osaka
not rated yet Jun 16, 2014
Cannibals! They're dwarf-eating cannibals.
Come over to the dark side, you don't know the power of the dark side, only together can we defeat the empirical evidence.
I prefer the unknown causality. Someone said we know 1%, another said less. Didn't see anyone disagree.
We look out to the vast distances, to the limits of the visible horizon and declare that's all there is. The universe may be much, much bigger than we think. We have no idea what kind of monsters may be lurking out in the dark or how they may effect the known universe.
Gravitational interactions are notoriously difficult to calculate, made especially so by imprecise measurements. At last count the probable locations of 177,000 SMBH have been established. Would anyone like to take a crack at what kind of gravitational interactions exist between them?
A Turing machine algorithm and sweet talking IBM out of their Blue Genes might do it in a few years. And the thing is: there are hundreds of billions of them out there.
msaul_ny
not rated yet Jun 16, 2014
drunk lawnmower guy is comedian marc ryan, btw

http://www.dailym...wer.html
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2014
drunk lawnmower guy is comedian marc ryan, btw

http://www.dailym...wer.html


That is Steve. He has a bunch of those dashboard webnet camera videos. He is famous down here. He got the one where they shot him with the taser. He got the one where his wife throwed his bong pipe in the trash. He got the one driving the scissor lift home drunk from work. And he got the other three or two with him driving home drunk on his lawnmower.

You can get the others if you google Lawnmower Steve Driving Drunk Youtube. But there is some copying cat ones that aren't so funny as the real Steve.
The sheriffs still trying to get him to leave Louisiana. They been trying for the years now.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2014
drunk lawnmower guy is comedian marc ryan, btw

http://www.dailym...wer.html


He is not marc ryan, that guy is taking credit for something that we been laughing already at for years down here in Louisiana. Google Steve up like I said up there and you will see what I mean.
tadchem
not rated yet Jun 16, 2014
The observations are consistent with a model of galaxy formation that mimics that of solar system formation: a large distributed mass of matter with a large net angular momentum condenses under gravitation, with local non-uniformities of mass distribution leading to local aggregations which nonetheless maintain the same overall angular momentum.
maitriandkaruna
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2014
Why is there an assumption that anything is being "torn" off? The galaxy is simply unwinding. See Walter Russell Cosmogony if you want real answers to science. Everything exactly the same on each "perceived" scale. The Uncle Iras and Chers of the world already know this. They use it to take advantage of others and don't want us, the good guys they feed off of, to know. My humble opinion anyway...