# The Dark Matter 'conspiracy'

Surprising gravitational similarities between spiral and elliptical galaxies have been discovered by an international team, including astronomers from Swinburne University of Technology, implying the influence of hidden forces.

In the first such survey to capture large numbers of these , researchers have mapped out the motions of stars in the outer parts of elliptical galaxies using the world's largest optical telescope at W M Keck Observatory in Hawaii.

"By combining Keck telescope time from Swinburne and the University of California, we were able to investigate a larger number of galaxies which allowed us to make this important discovery," Swinburne's Professor Duncan Forbes said.

The team, led by Michele Cappellari from the University of Oxford, used the powerful DEIMOS (DEep Imaging and Multi-Object Spectrograph) to conduct a major survey of called SLUGGS, which mapped out the speeds of their stars.

The scientists used Newton's law of gravity to translate these speed measurements into the amounts of matter distributed within the galaxies.

One of the most surprising scientific discoveries of the 20th century was that spiral galaxies, such as our own Milky Way, rotate much faster than expected, powered by an extra gravitational force of invisible 'dark matter'.

Since this discovery 40 years ago, we have learned this mysterious substance, which is probably an exotic elementary particle, makes up about 85 per cent of the mass in the known Universe, leaving only 15 per cent to be the ordinary stuff encountered in our everyday lives.

Dark matter is central to our understanding of how galaxies form and evolve and is ultimately one of the reasons for the existence of life on Earth – yet we know almost nothing about it.

"One of the surprising findings of this study was that spiral galaxies maintain a remarkably constant rotation speed throughout their disks," Dr Cappellari said. "This means stars and dark matter conspire to redistribute themselves to produce this effect, with stars dominating in the inner regions of the galaxies, and a gradual shift in the outer regions to dark matter dominance."

But the 'conspiracy' does not come out naturally from the models, and some fine-tuning is required to explain the observations. For this reason, some astronomers have suggested that, rather than being due to dark matter, it may be due to Newton's law of gravity becoming progressively less accurate at large distances.

Remarkably, decades after it was proposed, this alternative theory (without dark matter) still could not be conclusively ruled out.

Spiral galaxies constitute less than half of the stellar mass in the Universe, which is dominated by elliptical and . These have puffier configurations of stars and lack the flat disks of gas that spiral galaxies have. Until now it has been technically difficult to measure the masses of elliptical galaxies and to find out how much dark matter they have, and how this is distributed.

Because have different shapes and formation histories than spiral galaxies, the newly discovered conspiracy is even more profound and will lead experts in and galaxy formation to think carefully about what has happened in the 'dark sector' of the Universe.

The study is published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal Letters

Feedback to editors

Apr 30, 2015
I can't see the first image. It's cropped and won't zoom in. Fix it dammit!

Apr 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 30, 2015
Link to article with proper image of graph:
http://www.keckob...nspiracy

Apr 30, 2015
This seems as counter evidence to Bennies claims that elliptical galaxies have rotational curve which is in line with Newtonian gravity.

Apr 30, 2015
... some astronomers have suggested that, rather than being due to dark matter, it may be due to Newton's law of gravity becoming progressively less accurate at large distances.

Remarkably, decades after it was proposed, this alternative theory (without dark matter) still could not be conclusively ruled out.

And yet, we frantically cling to imaginary matter with daily pronouncements that we have found some.

Since this discovery 40 years ago, we have learned this mysterious substance, which is probably an exotic elementary particle, makes up about 85 per cent of the mass in the known Universe, leaving only 15 per cent to be the ordinary stuff encountered in our everyday lives.

continued ...

Apr 30, 2015
If this were true, all the rockets, manned and unmanned, we have sent throughout the solar system should have failed to reach their target since they were guided by simple Newtonian formula for gravity. But our probes have been remarkably accurate without the slightest hint of imaginary matter in our calculations.

Apr 30, 2015
http://arxiv.org/...04.00075

Apr 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 30, 2015
This seems as counter evidence to Bennies claims that elliptical galaxies have rotational curve which is in line with Newtonian gravity.

Elliptical Galaxies DO NOT have Rotation Curves. Your background in the science of Astronomy & Astro-physics functions at such a diminutive scale that it doesn't surprise me you're unable to accurately paraphrase anything I've stated about Elliptical Galaxies Vs. Spiral Galaxies. This article doesn't even go into as much detail as I have explaining how forces of gravity functions differently between the two types.

Now, if I say it again, do you think your brain can process it? ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES DO NOT HAVE ROTATION CURVES, ONLY SPIRALS HAVE ROTATION CURVES.

Now go back to the beginning of this article & get your brain engaged what is under discussion here, Rotation Curves of Spirals versus the lack of such curves in Ellipticals whose forces of gravity function in almost perfect accord with Newtonian Gravity & the Inverse Sq Law.

Apr 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 30, 2015
Without dark matter, the speeds should decrease with distance from the galaxy, at different rates for the two galaxy types

False.

You can disprove that within a few minutes if you just draw it out on paper and do some math yourself.

Once you reach the edge of the bulge, net gravity remains almost completely constant as you go out from the center.

Your "no dark matter" curve is what you would expect if you were treating all mass as being in the center of the galaxy, which is totally wrong.

The observed curve is exactly what it would be if no Dark Matter exists.

Which means, no Dark Matter exists.

Apr 30, 2015
One of the surprising findings of this study was that spiral galaxies maintain a remarkably constant rotation speed throughout their disks

I don't find that surprising, because I did the calculations for Newton's Laws correctly, while you never have in your life.

The stars on each outer shell are responsible for this because they negate some of the inward attraction...

Ironically, the cause of this phenomenon is exactly the opposite of what you think. There is actually more matter in the center of the galaxy than you calculate, and less matter near the edges than you think. There is no Dark Matter nor does there need to be.

Apr 30, 2015
Elliptical Galaxies DO NOT have Rotation Curves

They have them - just at larger distance . The dark matter effects of elliptical galaxies are stronger, not weaker than these ones of spiral galaxies
Pure spin narrative

as they manifest itself at larger distance from parent galaxy. I already explained you five-times already.
And 5 times you're wrong,

You simply are unable to comprehend the orbital velocities of stars in Ellipticals vs. the Rotation Curve velocities of Spirals. You're just getting yourself all bent out of shape because you have this craven desire to bring Ellipticals under the same umbrella of gravitational forces as Spirals. You don't like the fact that E's operate in perfect accord with Newtonian Gravity, so you're spinning personal opinion narratives.

Your biggest problem is you simply do not comprehend the Einstein Field Equations or much of anything else contained in Einstein's General Relativity.

Apr 30, 2015
If this were true, all the rockets, manned and unmanned, we have sent throughout the solar system should have failed to reach their target since they were guided by simple Newtonian formula for gravity. But our probes have been remarkably accurate without the slightest hint of imaginary matter in our calculations.

five to six times the imaginary matter, no less!

Where's the companion dark matter blob for the Sun and It's neighbours?

NASA can track an orbit of a probe with precision of plus or minus a few centimeters per second among orbital velocities of tens of kilometers per second. If there was so much as a planet's worth of Dark Matter anywhere within a few light years they could pin point it by its gravitational perturbations.

These people have gone BAT SHIT CRAZY, and they get post honorary degrees as their rewards.

Apr 30, 2015
My semi-formal graphical proof Dark Matter is not needed to produce the observed curve.

https://www.youtu...uOqChEl8

Apr 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 30, 2015
My semi-formal graphical proof Dark Matter is not needed to produce the observed curve.

https://www.youtu...uOqChEl8

@ Wade-Skippy. You got the serious mental condition Cher. You don't have anything better to do than play Fisher-Price-Scientist on the Yourtube? After everybody starts making the fun with that I bet you wish the physorg peoples would back off that 3 minute change your mind limit they got in place.

But your Yourtube thing was neat and orderly and looked nice.

Apr 30, 2015
Because elliptical galaxies have different shapes and formation histories than spiral galaxies, the newly discovered conspiracy...

My english must not be up to par...but i always thought a 'conspiracy' was something different.

Apr 30, 2015
Benni, Im not sure if you have seen the proper first image of this article. It clearly shows graph of circular speed of elliptical galaxies. Take a look here:
http://www.swinbu...acy.html

Apr 30, 2015
Some physicists are starting to realize the notions of dark matter and the dark matter particle are incorrect. They are referring to the mass which fills 'empty' space as 'dark mass' in order to separate it from the baggage associated with dark matter.

https://tienzengo...t-truth/

"That is, all that we are certain about [is] the dark mass, not dark matter, let alone to say about the dark 'particle'."

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark mass, including particles as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way moves through and displaces the dark mass.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark mass.

The state of displacement of the dark mass is curved spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo *is* curved spacetime.

Apr 30, 2015
"This means stars and dark matter conspire to redistribute themselves to produce this effect, with stars dominating in the inner regions of the galaxies, and a gradual shift in the outer regions to dark matter dominance."

Maybe we could think that the galaxies drag the surrounding dark matter while rotating, and this idea could help to visualize how it works

Now come on here, let's apply some common sense to this. If a Spiral is composed of 85% DM, just how do you expect the remaining 15% Visible M to come up with enough gravity to "drag" anything around? What you might expect is that the DM would just sort of swallow up the VM & Spirals could never merge to form Ellipticals, all of which function in perfect accord with Newtonian Gravity with their stars orbiting the cores in accordance with the Inverse Square Law.

Apr 30, 2015
Benni, I would really like to know how do you explain this graph:
http://www.swinbu...acy.html

Apr 30, 2015
Because elliptical galaxies have different shapes and formation histories than spiral galaxies, the newly discovered conspiracy...

My english must not be up to par...but i always thought a 'conspiracy' was something different.

You're correct. If the article referred to the notions of dark matter and the dark matter particle as being incorrect then you could refer to the dark matter as a 'conspiracy'.

The notions of dark matter and the dark matter particle are incorrect, by the way.

'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it, including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way moves through and displaces the 'dark mass'.

Curved space *is* displaced dark mass.

Apr 30, 2015
rather than being due to dark matter, it may be due to Newton's law of gravity becoming progressively less accurate at large distances.

In SubQuantum Kinectics, gravitational influence falls off progressively with distance, becoming essentially null at distances around 10K Lyrs.

Apr 30, 2015
Elliptical Galaxies DO NOT have Rotation Curves. Your background in the science of Astronomy & Astro-physics functions at such a diminutive scale that it doesn't surprise me you're unable to accurately paraphrase anything I've stated about Elliptical Galaxies Vs. Spiral Galaxies. This article doesn't even go into as much detail as I have explaining how forces of gravity functions differently between the two types.

Now, if I say it again, do you think your brain can process it? ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES DO NOT HAVE ROTATION CURVES, ONLY SPIRALS HAVE ROTATION CURVES.

Really amusing rant Bennie. Actually, Im not professional physicist, I have informatics education, physics is my hobby. But I have feeling, that you are not professional physicist too and you have also similar informatics background like me.

Apr 30, 2015
Stars in the inner region and dark matter in the halo is easily explained by baryonic dark matter that converts to stars in regions of high stellar radiation.

If familiar gravitationally-bound primordial giant molecular clouds (GMCs) in their visible 'excited state' with luminous gaseous metallicity also have an invisible 'normal state' in which the acquired stellar metallicity has 'snowed out' into icy chondrules, sequestering it from visibility like Oort cloud comet ice, then the remaining primordial molecular hydrogen and helium, which don't emit or absorb below ultraviolet (Lyman-alpha) frequencies, would be essentially invisible and thus dark.

We've looked for dark baryonic MACROS, but not for dark gravitationally-bound GMCs composed of diffuse gravitationally-bound (Bok) globules which can't be detected by microlensing studies. To detect dark GMCs in the halo we need high-resolution UV studies or microwave studies that would look for their centimeter-scale icy chondrules.

Apr 30, 2015
Elliptical Galaxies DO NOT have Rotation Curves. Your background in the science of Astronomy & Astro-physics functions at such a diminutive scale that it doesn't surprise me you're unable to accurately paraphrase anything I've stated about Elliptical Galaxies Vs. Spiral Galaxies. This article doesn't even go into as much detail as I have explaining how forces of gravity functions differently between the two types.

Now, if I say it again, do you think your brain can process it? ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES DO NOT HAVE ROTATION CURVES, ONLY SPIRALS HAVE ROTATION CURVES.

Really amusing rant Bennie. Actually, Im not professional physicist
You don't realize how obvious it is that you've never seen the inside of college physics classroom

I have informatics education, physics is my hobby
Not my hobby as an Electrical/Nuclear Engineer with 6 years engineering school education. It's why I find it so easy to trip you up in Calculus based physics like Einstein's GR?

Apr 30, 2015
http://www.swinbu...acy.html

It clearly shows graph of circular speed of elliptical galaxies.

Apr 30, 2015
@ Bennie-Skippy. How you are Cher?

Not my hobby as an Electrical/Nuclear Engineer with 6 years engineering school education. It's why I find it so easy to trip you up in Calculus based physics like Einstein's GR?

Considering you haven't ever tripped anybody up on the calculus I doubt he is going to believe you like nobody else does either. Maybe if you write differential equation about 10 or 9 times you can fool him into thinking you are a nuclear engineer, but I doubt that me.

This is two days in a row with the article that makes your elliptical galaxy theory no rotation thing completely wrong like all the other stuffs you get wrong. Maybe you should try to stay away from the elliptical galaxy for awhile so everybody will start forget about how you can't really be the nuclear science Skippy.

Sorry Cher, it's been a really bad week for you, eh?

Apr 30, 2015
://www.swinbu...acy.html

It clearly shows graph of circular speed of elliptical galaxies.

There are no opinions to give about the rate of velocity that stars in Elliptical gravity fields orbit the centers of their respective mass. They are recorded & observed to vary in almost exact accord of the Inverse Square Law when applying Newtonian Gravity, Spirals do not behave in this manner. You probably still don't know what I just stated do you? Your problem is you do not know what the Inverse Square Law is & you do not know what Newtonian Gravity is.

Another fundamental problem you're having is that you are confusing the term Rotation Curve with the dictionary definition of the word "rotation", a word which simply means "orbit" or "circular speed".

The above pictorial presents a Rotation Curve in context with the Spiral above it. The author simply failed to note that the graph is a Rotation Curve.

Apr 30, 2015
The above pictorial presents a Rotation Curve in context with the Spiral above it. The author simply failed to note that the graph is a Rotation Curve.

@ Bennie-Skippy. You don't want to keep up with the habit of ol Ira-Skippy correcting you. That's why we all know you can not be the nuclear engineer.

That picture up there in the article is cut in half, it don't show the whole thing. You got to follow the Ultron-Skippy's linkum to see the whole thing, then maybe you can try to answer his question without looking so foolish.

If you keep letting me catch you wrong, peoples is going to start making the fun with you. Well they already do that but will do it more because if I can understand something and you can't then you got to be the silliest couyon on the physorg.

Apr 30, 2015
Benni, I have clearly asked for your opinion about the graph of rotational curve of elliptical galaxies, which obviously deviates from Newton gravity. Instead discussing this topic you choose to pretend the graph does not exist and started personal attack on me.

What is wrong with you? Do you have some mental disorder or what? Why do you try to ignore the evidence?

Apr 30, 2015
Benni, I have clearly asked for your opinion about the graph of rotational curve of elliptical galaxies, which obviously deviates from Newton gravity. Instead discussing this topic you choose to pretend the graph does not exist and started personal attack on me.

Why do you try to ignore the evidence?
Because there is no evidence. The evidence so far is that you are failing to comprehend that Elliptical Galaxies do not have Rotation Curves. Why should anybody care what you think about some graph? You still don't know what a Rotation Curve is because you continue trying to apply the orbital velocities of stars in Ellipticals into something called a Rotation Curve that can only be applied to Spirals.........sheeesh, you want to talk about someone having a mental disorder is no less than yourself looking in a mirror.........you've become as boring as Ira has ever been which is why I've put him on the Ignore.

Apr 30, 2015
as Ira has ever been which is why I've put him on the Ignore.

We don't believe that either Cher. You know you can not help yourself.

@ Ultron-Skippy. You might as well give up on ol Bennie-Skippy. That's what he always does when somebody asks him the question.

And when he does try answer a question, he usually does the snip and glue with something he steals from the "ASK-YAHOO-SKIPPY-THE-QUESTION" and pretends it's him writing it down. Seriously he really does that, ol Ira-Skippy has caught him in the act. That's why he pretends to ignore me, so he can pretend I'm not catching him.

Apr 30, 2015
"This acceleration law reduces to the Newtonian acceleration law for distance scales $d << \mu^{-1}$. This acceleration law is applied to predict the rotation curves of galaxies and globular clusters with excellent fits to data for $\alpha=8.89\pm 0.34$ and $\mu=0.042\pm 0.004\,{\rm kpc}^{-1}$ without dark matter. An application to galaxy clusters with the same values of $\alpha$ and $\mu$ results in fits to cluster dynamics data without dark matter. The colliding clusters "bullet cluster" is also explained without dark matter. " -- From lecture by John Moffat of the Perimeter Institute, Waterloo. -- http://www.perime...-shadows

(Every REALLY new idea has to wait until all those who were taught the old idea replaced by it die off).

Actually I have been reading the published gravity theory by Moffat, but it seems there is no new prediction, just ad hoc adjustment.

Apr 30, 2015
@Benni @Returners, as a physicist I would like to set some facts straight regarding the above figure.

As written, the green curve represents the *circular* speed V_c. This is defined as the speed that an object needs to have to move along a circular orbit at the given radius.

In an elliptical galaxy the stars do not move on circular orbits, and V_c does not represent the mean speed of the stars. While in a spiral galaxy the stars move on nearly circular orbits and V_c is a good approximation of the mean stellar velocities.

In practice, in the approximation of spherical symmetry V_c(r)=sqrt[G*M(r)/r]. This implies that V_c gives a direct measure of the enclosed mass M(r) inside the radius r.

If the galaxy mass is finite and given by M_tot, at large radii V_c=sqrt(G*M_tot/r). In other words, without dark matter V_c decrease proportionally to 1/sqrt(r) and it tends to zero at infinity as illustrated.

Apr 30, 2015
Well, if fractal, what about the next higher scale? Can you then define a mass distribution based with those forces at play. Why give up on sound theory, there must be a distribution that satisfies, and maybe the measurement error should be more definitive in theory, and scale.

If my surrounding mass centers in every quadrant are as you say, and every galaxy responds, Then the total matter about us, and each galaxy may be reconciled, and the dark matter is matter we don't see nor do we understand it's fractal distribution. So what are we really looking at, the data or the theory, or both.

Apr 30, 2015
So, do we see a rigid body vortex? So what would be the field structure?

Ouch! Dark matter just dropped on my head!

Apr 30, 2015
The question I have Pleiades99 is can one just use the "given radius" to conclude the velocity at a given orbit for a star in a spiral galaxy? I would think more would need to be considered. Wouldn't the mass further from the center directly effect the strength of the galaxy's gravitational field from the center at all given radii out to the outer edges of a spiral galaxy?

By the way I believe in dark matter and energy.

Apr 30, 2015
As written, the green curve represents the *circular* speed V_c
.....of Spirals, but not Ellipticals.

In an elliptical galaxy the stars do not move on circular orbits
They move in elliptical orbits at a velocity directly proportional to their distance from the core in accordance with the Inverse Sq Law & how much they are offset from the major & minor axes of the Ellipse.

and V_c does not represent the mean speed of the stars
......as I pointed out directly above for Ellipticals. Mean speed of outer orbitals in Es is about 2 km/s.

While in a spiral galaxy the stars move on nearly circular orbits and V_c is a good approximation of the mean stellar velocities
They move at a very consistent rate across the length of a radial arm @ 100-200 km/s, a rate much faster than the outermost orbitals of Ellipticals for which velocities vary in strict accord with the Inverse Square Law as applied to Newtonian gravity. Follow me so far?

Apr 30, 2015
Those challenges are easy. It's word salad.

What you do is reroute the primary plasma conduit through the starboard warp nacelle in order to create a subspace phase shift differential which translates using the inverse halo breach to create continuum distortion propulsion. Refute that with the Lorentz equation, IF YOU DARE! What, you don't understand transcendental warp mechanics?! Where's your god now, science!

Are you saying, if I ran a simulation with just the proton and the electron, i.e. the only particles I accept, with knowledge that wave front velocity is defined by these initial conditions and is vector-space related to me by the period I measure of this wavelet divide by this amount of time gives me only a radial vector speed, +/- velocity vector. So I would be using plasma with an initial velocity, i.e. particles or waves, then accelerate the particle, or phase shift, or polarize in such away as to transfer energy onto empty space.

Apr 30, 2015
Or you may coordinate with existing fields and particles that exist in space. Then you would probably define your route using the particle density map for the location, will now be part of the control relative to each new domain. Particle and field density & Speed => new speed. Power conversion source, i.e. atomic to galactic transformations. I can see that, this dark matter thing. Why not geometry! Fractal? or limited scale? ... based upon known physics. Try that before looking in the dark. Why not a solid irrotational toroidal vortex, what's the field? At a certain distance from the rotational vortex, there may easily exist a field, strong enough to over-come the delta r, and prefer a certain distribution that creates stability. Yes, you are looking in the dark, not for the dark? Simple mix up in prepositions.

Apr 30, 2015
What's the energy difference of this self-simulating state, with the constituent particle states, equilibrium condition with the particle interactions taken into account, i.e. not mass, or gravity, the causal effect produced by these particles, as compared to the assumed lump sum, and scale-able, measure poorly defined relative to earth since Newton, called mass? What's the definition of this vortex, G? i.e. the physics?

dark Matter?

Apr 30, 2015
First, we should repair our syntax logically, and correct our terminology. This might give a better direction for our search.

Apr 30, 2015
What we see, we should define. Are we so lazy to say, "Must be dark matter!" when we have a science that defines such a vortex. I'd like to dig, but is it a fluid or a field based upon what initial conditions and how many disruptions and time could define exactly what we see. There lies your new science. Go to it. Put the light on and get out the dark.

Apr 30, 2015
Would age cause this disk to flare, what would it bring along with it, i.e. proximity away from the center and proximity to my biggest neighbor. The whole thing trying to precess and only bending the outer ring, not quite "precess-mode", that would be a different field. I'm just using my imagination and am confused about why dark matter? maybe I should have been an Astrophysicist.

Apr 30, 2015
In an elliptical galaxy the stars do not move on circular orbits
They move in elliptical orbits at a velocity directly proportional to their distance from the core in accordance with the Inverse Sq Law & how much they are offset from the major & minor axes of the Ellipse.

A circle is little more than a (nearly) perfect ellipse where the foci of the ellipse occupy approximately the same point as the center of the circle thus making the circle's diameter equal to both the major and minor axes. The formulae for calculating orbital velocities for either can be the same but because the ellipse's axes are equal the formulae can be simplified substantially.

Apr 30, 2015
Where is all the Dork Matter in the Sun's neighbourhood? It mysteriously doesn't exist at all. Nowhere.

No pixie dust.
No Niburu
No Vulcan
No Planet X
No Nemesis

Seriously. There's less than one Earth's mass unaccounted for within a light year of the Earth.

Apr 30, 2015
Seriously. There's less than one Earth's mass unaccounted for within a light year of the Earth.

Okay, seriously. I'll bite. How did you cipher that out? I mean especially since we ain't through discovering all the asteroids and comets and such like. How you know what's missing or not missing?

Returnering-Skippy, I am fond of you Cher. Really I am, so I feel bad for hurting your feelings. But I am going to have to call BS on that made up little gem.

Apr 30, 2015
Where is all the Dork Matter in the Sun's neighbourhood? It mysteriously doesn't exist at all. Nowhere.

No pixie dust

Seriously. There's less than one Earth's mass unaccounted for within a light year of the Earth.

The logical mind thinks the same things, but when you're trying to sort your way through a field while dealing with people all of whom think they're smarter than the next guy, things get whimsically clumpy, it's just what they do to garner attention, they come up with whimsical hypotheses about stuff nobody cares anything about thinking they're impressing you.

Apr 30, 2015
@Benni & Uncle Ira just thought I add my bit. I am a layman but my understanding of rotation curves in spirals & ellipticals is that sprials are 'flat' or more disc like, while ellipticals are not. The stars in ellipticals don't move in orbits like those of spirals. The method for finding the rot curves in spirals cannot be used for ellipticals but other methods can be employed, gravitational lensing. here is one quote; '...The authors found that the mass-to-light ratio is constant for different sizes of Einstein rings, showing that there is no sign of large amounts of dark matter surrounding these galaxies! If there is dark matter in these galaxies, it's mixed in with the luminous matter...'
Another paper using MOND graphs on elliptical galaxy NGC 3379 study were as expected without involving DM.
Seems like we'll have to wait for more studies concerning ellipticals formed from spirals,eh?

May 01, 2015
The infatuation with dark matter is just bad science. Giving far too much credence to an indirectly observed ad hoc hypothesis and then using it to build off of. Dark matter/dark energy cannot ever be falsified, they are pseudoscience in the truest sense. As the use of the hypothetical dark matter was increased in papers it soon became the only theory to look into. The ignorance of any alternative to a fundamentally gravitational model will require an endless number of incredible, unfalsifiable creations to fix the flawed foundation.

May 01, 2015
This is happening when scientific intelligibility i.e. explanation of phenomena based on deep, fundamental understanding of comprehensible mechanism is replaced by speculative occult-like theories calling for invisible/undetectable entities supported by scarce, deficient or over interpreted data.
This type of simulation is flawed in its foundation since it is based solving millions of two-body problems instead of one multi-million body problem. Of course they do it that way since there is no exact solution to multi-body problem.
That causes potential increase errors in position and velocity of the stars, deterioration of quality of approximation at every simulation time step. Newton law, exponential could be slightly off. When R is large the differences could be substantial and simple two body calculations may be off even if force itself would be weak. See theory vs reality at https://questforn...ibility/

May 01, 2015
@rossim22
The infatuation with dark matter is just bad science. Giving far too much credence to an indirectly observed ad hoc hypothesis ...

MOND is also ad hoc and is not a complete theory...and it has other problems.

May 01, 2015
Those graphs in the picture are quite confusing, they represent Circular Speed, not velocity.

I.E. The velocity of the stars at the extremes of the galaxies are moving much faster through space than those close to the center, on both the spiral and elliptical galaxies.

Actually the speed. or the "awkward flow", the steady vortex, equal velocity,Note: The equal velocity is only the tangential component that forms. So it is a rotating vector. Like beads aligned any way you wish, on a stiff rod that you might twirl.

May 01, 2015
@rossim22
The infatuation with dark matter is just bad science. Giving far too much credence to an indirectly observed ad hoc hypothesis ...

MOND is also ad hoc and is not a complete theory...and it has other problems.

What hypothesis, som'n ain't right? Correct hypothesis, but silly conclusion, it's a non-conclusion. Should fix the thinking without the unknown fantasy as a substance.

May 01, 2015
"there is no exact solution to multi-body problem. "

Not yet!

May 01, 2015
I don't see any nay sayer's on here even trying to explain the observational data, they just have an issue with a name.

How about we start calling it Crispy Bacon Matter ???

I mean everyone loves bacon .... right M8! ???

Call it "Nothing" and since space is nothing, make space a mathematical 4 dimensional shape, where it is the container of these fields and particles alone. "Nothing" then is defined and space would be expanding relative to everybody! "Nothing" would have what effect?

May 01, 2015
If - I'm not asserting anything here, merely posing an hypothetical - If Special Relativity's reciprocal time dilation is wrong, and time dilation between us and distant objects is in fact directional, then every single measurement going into this analysis is overestimating velocities. Every single one. If time dilation is directional between us and those distant objects, then the red shifts must be adjusted for it to obtain true velocities.

I'd be happy to dismiss this possibility - if we had any experimental evidence for *reciprocal* time dilation. There are tons of evidence for *time dilation.* But reciprocity has never been experimentally shown. The only experiments which teased out the distinction involved GPS satellites, and there, time dilation has definitely been shown to be directional.

I'm not arguing for sweeping changes to our cosmology. I *am* arguing for experimental confirmation of SR's reciprocal time dilation.

May 01, 2015
It remains now to hope for some dark apple to fall accidentally on the head of Newton the second to resolve this dark dilemma in the dark science dealing with the dark deeds to elucidate them.

May 01, 2015
@Benni & Ira just thought I add my bit. I am a layman but my understanding of rotation curves in spirals & ellipticals
.....Ellipticals DO NOT have a Rotation Curve, cease it with the nonsense!

The stars in ellipticals don't move in orbits like those of spirals
No kidding, what do you think I've been saying.

The method for finding the rot curves in spirals cannot be used for ellipticals but other methods can be employed
........"other methods can be employed" for what? You sound as if you're morphing right back into some manner of mindset that Ellipticals do have a Rotation Curve, it's just that it is somehow different than Spirals.

You need to cement it into your brain that Rotation Curves NEVER EVER apply to Ellipticals, until you do that you will never understand the basic structures of galaxies & why it spells doom to the argument for the Dark Magic cosmic fairy dust hypothesis.

May 01, 2015
My semi-formal graphical proof Dark Matter is not needed to produce the observed curve.

https://www.youtu...uOqChEl8

You've essentially assumed a dark matter disk. The point about spiral galaxies is the light from the stars isn't constant, it falls off with radius but the rotation curve implies the mass does not.

You should really learn calculus, it would have made that calculation trivial and rigorous.

Mean speed of outer orbitals in Es is about 2 km/s.

No. The second figure shows the rotation profile (a 2D rotation curve) for the stars with velocities of +/-165 km/s. Check the paper if you don't believe me. The net rotation velocity of an elliptical is not the same as the orbital speed of the stars, it is you who is treating ellipticals like stars and ignoring velocity dispersion.

May 01, 2015

Mean speed of outer orbitals in Es is about 2 km/s.

Read it again Impo, "outer orbitals". Follow me here, outer orbital stars do not compose all the stars contained within an Elliptical.

No. The second figure shows the rotation profile (a 2D rotation curve) for the stars with velocities of +/-165 km/s. Check the paper if you don't believe me. The net rotation velocity of an elliptical is not the same as the orbital speed of the stars, it is you who is treating ellipticals like stars and ignoring velocity dispersion.
.......and you are just one more person erroneously applying Rotation Curves to Ellipticals. Before you start castigating someone else about learning Calculus, you should first learn when & how to apply Rotation Curves to galactic structures, so far the evidence is that it's incomprehensible to you because of all the Dark Magic cosmic fairy dust clutter you find so faddish to dwell on.

May 01, 2015
An experiment to measure the strength of dark energy maybe coming soon.. https://youtu.be/DsBACIstuTI

Exploring the unknown still requires a lot of patience. When decades of history in a particular field can now be read about in a day, or when the internet returns answers to our questions in milliseconds, you should not forget that this kind of bleeding edge stuff has always and will always require patience.

So science trolls.. "just chill, sit back and enjoy the ride!"

May 01, 2015
An Orphan wrote, "The red and blue shifts are specific to a particular galaxy, and therefore any time dilation of the intervening space would affect both the blue and red, and the rotation speed is the difference between the two, making any time dilation irrelevant to this observation."

Incorrect.

First, there aren't many blue shifting galaxies. They're almost all red shifted.

Second, if time dilation *should* be subtracted from red shift, then every measurement except luminosity is wrong. Mass calculations are entirely dependent on red shift analysis. If we're measuring it wrong, we need a do-over.

Dark matter might not go away if we have to recalculate our cosmology. I don't know. But the mass estimations we're making right now will have to be adjusted - *if* time dilation to distant objects is directional rather than reciprocal.

Einstein is tough to defy; he got so much right. But even the best theoretician needs confirmation via evidence.

May 01, 2015
Follow-on to my last comment.

Andromeda is one galaxy that is moving towards us, I recall. It's the closest full-sized galaxy, and a big one - I think I remember it's twice the size of the Milky Way. Millions of years hence, the two will collide.

So Andromeda should be blue shifted.

But even there, the mass and velocity estimations we're making rely on spectrum shifting; and because our relative velocities are different, spectrum shifting analysis is still important in mass and rotational velocity estimation.

And there is time dilation, because we're not moving at the same velocities.

So the question of which version of time dilation is true still matters, even for a blue-shifted galaxy.

Einstein preferred directional time dilation in General Relativity. He preferred reciprocal time dilation in Special Relativity. Both transformations he used came from Lorentz. These two great theoreticians straddled the question rather than settling it.

May 01, 2015
Follow me here, outer orbital stars do not compose all the stars contained within an Elliptical.

"Outer" is arbitrary. It can mean anything.

are just one more person erroneously applying Rotation Curves to Ellipticals

So what is the second figure if not a rotation profile?

May 01, 2015
The idea for drak matter and energy have unparalleled comfort in mass media and "scientific" jurnals. Is it a manifestation of some occult ritual? They seem to have become the platform for mass disinformation of society. Paganism in action.

May 01, 2015
"Outer" is arbitrary. It can mean anything.
...then you must not believe Pluto is not an "outer orbital dwarf planet" if we are to follow your arbitrary concept of "outer orbital".

Your problem is the same problem all the DMagic enthusiasts have, you're trying to advance the DM narrative in such a manner that it explains the lensing effects observed to be specifically peculiar to Giant Ellipticals that are not observed with Spirals of any size.

All the Einstein Rings created by gravitational lensing is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% caused by the Giant Ellipticals, show us anything like that caused by even the biggest Spiral, you can't & you are not very pleased that I point this out because it points to the deficit of gravity within Spirals consequently diminishing the DM hypothesis that DM gravity is the explanation for the Rotation Curves of Spirals.

Go take a Differential Calculus course, maybe it'll help you understand Einstein's GR better.

May 01, 2015
.....Ellipticals DO NOT have a Rotation Curve, cease it with the nonsense!

Harvard University appears to disagree with you... 30+ years ago.

May 01, 2015
the lensing effects observed to be specifically peculiar to Giant Ellipticals that are not observed with Spirals of any size.

Bennie-Skippy. Why you keep telling that lie when a bunch of peoples have posted you to linkums that say that is not so?

All the Einstein Rings created by gravitational lensing is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% caused by the Giant Ellipticals,

You are putting a lot more galaxies in the universe than can be seen. Maybe you should work on your different equations Cher.

show us anything like that caused by even the biggest Spiral,

xyz-Skippy and IMP-Skippy and Captain-Skippy and other-Skippys have over and over and you pretend they didn't.

you can't & you are not very pleased that I point this out

Why they are not pleased? You are the one who is wrong, again.

take a Differential Calculus course

How would that make Bennie-Skippy any smarter? Maybe you should take him.

May 01, 2015
.....Ellipticals DO NOT have a Rotation Curve, cease it with the nonsense!

Harvard University appears to disagree with you... 30+ years ago.

...........better called "cherry picking your Astronomers" who are DM enthusiasts.They are caught between a rock & a hard place because they're at a loss to explain why the gravitational forces of Ellipticals function in full accord with Newtonian Gravity & the Inverse Square Law. I'll just bet you never knew this did you?

Have you ever heard of the Inverse Square Law? Do you know how to apply that to Newtonian Gravity?

What your favorite Astronomers have done is bilge up a scenario whereby his so-called Elliptical Rotation Curves are of a "subtle" nature, you know kind of like DM, conveniently hidden away in unviewable corners of Es performing all manner of neat gravitational functions we would never have figured out but for his guesswork.

May 01, 2015
Nice try Rufus but it's been tried, and doesn't help explain the decades of anomalies in observational data.

It's a name given to a phenomenon , nothing more , a placeholder to focus our efforts on.

So, you don't know what we are looking, "at" or is it based upon how you measured that. Com'n you didn't use GR or a misunderstood measure of mass? Did you? The unknown is what you don't understand about mass. So looking at the multiple states that we may exist, it's only 1 state, about you! A stable condition of these particles. Maybe you need to consider it from the bottom up. I see only +/-, new mystery, i.e charge! Mass has attributes, {Nm of Mass/(me +mp) equal to the number of pairs of these particles, E field/r^2, Mag field a relative measure, i.e. definable by its turbulence, ie curl, and gradient as a rate of time ... blah, blah, blah, how slow may it grow or ...

May 01, 2015
If entropy is always increasing, what should we expect from a point at its maximum entropy? Turbulence, is always decreasing, unless driven by a turbulent field. i.e. definable in free space, unless acted upon by Human Intelligence. It's how energy redistributes itself same with the distribution of particles and energy states all relative and linked to each other, up to a point, when where you are and nearby bodies have such an effect, that's when you may drop this small delta, but if there more, much, much more and we need this measure, based upon the precision of mass?

May 01, 2015
the curl of the curl is the beautiful point, 0. Is this in units of what? Think I would need a layout with 4 orthogonal coordinates, each mapped to my choice of lamda nu = c, therefore each dimension may be defined as time or distance. So we begin analysis with time as distance, i.e. a definable universal four dimensional scale based upon capability and theoretical calculation. Then we could see.

May 01, 2015
Or just continue using that space where the wave-front, or the propagation speed of a wavelet's Poynting vector in space, relative to me is the same as relative to the transmitter is evidence of early dementia. Oh, I forgot the wave-front and the Poynting Vector is not well defined .. He just forgot.

May 01, 2015
So your measure of frequency:f, speed:u:, and wave-font speed:c and a constant K, of G(f,u,c,k)!

May 01, 2015
.....Ellipticals DO NOT have a Rotation Curve, cease it with the nonsense!

Harvard University appears to disagree with you... 30+ years ago.

...........better called "cherry picking your Astronomers" who are DM enthusiasts.They are caught between a rock & a hard place because they're at a loss to explain why the gravitational forces of Ellipticals function in full accord with Newtonian Gravity & the Inverse Square Law. I'll just bet you never knew this did you?

Have you ever heard of the Inverse Square Law? Do you know how to apply that to Newtonian Gravity?

Who's cherry picking what here? DM was a mainstream theory in 1978?

Go ahead and ignore the known and accepted formulae. That just proves you're not being honest.

May 01, 2015
I think you have misunderstood something Urgelt, have a look at this ...
http://cse.ssl.be...02_a.jpg

If there is time dilation it will be constant for both the red and blue shifts, therefore irrelevant to this conversation.

Kidding right? speed of wave front, then lambda emitted/ lambda observed => +/- infinity, and that's just the signature of the particle field interactions, we see! What's your measure, a wrinkle in "nothing"?

May 01, 2015

SEE: http://news.uga.e...5550.pdf

for absolute Lorentz transformation and anisotropy of light propagation (violation of postulates of SR).

And https://questforn...ativity/
for science vs reality conundrum.

May 02, 2015
One can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable, but you can't do this with DM narratives because the spin for the hypotheses has such a high rate of change.

AT first DM was everywhere, then it got clumpy, next it had it's own kind of gravity different than Visible matter gravity. If DM makes up 85% of the matter in the universe that leaves Visible matter to account for only 15% of all the gravity. Doing some simple math here: 85/15= 5.67 ratio of DM gravity to VM gravity.

Which of you DM enthusiasts above would like to explain to me where we should be looking for the remainder of the 85% our Sun? How about our planet? There's no gravity evidence that 85% of these bodies are missing something, so there goes your most testable specimens......the reason you need "clumpy" cosmic fairy dust.

May 02, 2015
.then you must not believe Pluto is not an "outer orbital dwarf planet"

I don't because we Eris, and then we have Sedna and whatever lies after that, and after that.

And you just completely ignored my question. What is the second figure if not a rotation profile?

Which of you DM enthusiasts above would like to explain to me where we should be looking for the remainder of the 85% our Sun?

The whole point point of CDM is that it doesn't collapse because it has no efficient means of shedding angular momentum.

May 02, 2015
The big bang is still quite a mysterious event to us, being the start of existence and all that. It isn't just as simple as the stuff we can see, there is clearly some extra weirdness going on to allow everything to happen in the first place, open your mind Benni.

May 02, 2015
It isn't just as simple as the stuff we can see there is clearly some extra weirdness going on
Really? So what's the "extra weirdness" you're referring to?

to allow everything to happen in the first place
To allow what to happen? What is this "everything" you refer to? Maybe you think there's a lot of missing matter even though we can't measure any missing gravity in our neighborhood pointing to something that's supposedly "missing".

I completed six years worth of Engineering School education, I can follow every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR, and I don't believe in the tooth fairy or any of her sisters. Comparing yourself to my resume, how "open" is your mind Joe?

May 02, 2015
"If you heard a loud noise outside at a distance that you could not see the source "

Are you talking about the noise made by lazy physicists? i.e. analyzing nature with a variable, mass, as a function of "velocity" is also a function of displacement or as a function of relative state, while ignoring the constituent parts of the "mass". Then, the GR theory also has momentum as a function of displacement that is ignored, this is so far from science there is no science to locate it. Don't forget, this noise also has waves and particles with same attributes. Not even attentive! The source of waves is a totally different thing than the wave. Are we using this to measure what? The noise of stupidity?

May 02, 2015
The issue is the amount of work. Historically we did not have the correct tools to define the self-simulation of a very large group of electrons and protons. The "ghost" substance is the lack of attention and use of sound physics. "I don't see the problem. It must be some sort of dark matter." Instead of the obvious! Lack of work, so we result to asinine guesses for an asinine theory. Not physics! The "absolute" insanity is the defense using this nonsense!

May 02, 2015
The issue is the amount of work. Historically we did not have the correct tools to define the self-simulation of a very large group of electrons and protons. The "ghost" substance is the lack of attention and use of sound physics. "I don't see the problem. It must be some sort of dark matter." Instead of the obvious! Lack of work, so we result to asinine guesses for an asinine theory. Not physics! The "absolute" insanity is the defense using this nonsense!

May 02, 2015
First define how these elemental particles self-assemble. "Dark matter", really?

May 02, 2015
the curl of the curl is the beautiful point, 0. Is this in units of what? Think I would need a layout with 4 orthogonal coordinates, each mapped to my choice of lamda nu = c, therefore each dimension may be defined as time or distance. So we begin analysis with time as distance, i.e. a definable universal four dimensional scale based upon capability and theoretical calculation. Then we could see.

i.e. c is a constant, but are we using it properly?

May 02, 2015
Like I've been saying from the beginning, it's an effect and the cause probably isn't matter. I would say that the odds are slightly in favor of some lack of understanding rather than dark matter. We hang on to our ideas to the last straw and dark matter will be invoked by some even after we find out what the real cause is. Just like all the fools who think time travel, singularities and worm holes exist as if infinity isn't just a figment of our imagination.

May 02, 2015

What's missing using charge to calculate gravity between two objects, i.e. superimposed charge centers of a stable mass? The time varying field the "masses" exist within!

May 02, 2015
@ STRJ
Ignore, deny, obfuscate" isn't the scientific method.
But it is pretty much the only thing happening under most of commented articles on Physorg, right! Does it really matter?

Science is not what is happening in those comments, it is not even the article preceding those comments. What would be the purpose of science aficionados (people like you and me) to be here?

My thought on this is that, although reading those articles can be interesting, they are too short to bring much understanding in the science involved. Their purpose is to publicize an undergoing scientific endeavour or a given scientific paper. The plus value of the comments, if you read and participate in them, is that it gives you a motivation to investigate further and this exactly because of...
Ignore, deny, obfuscate" isn't the scientific method.

May 02, 2015
Only thing, these articles are more like spam.

May 02, 2015
One quibble here: This report does NOT seem to have considered the recent discovery of rippled 'disk' in spirals, which may provide significant additional mass further out than a 'flat' model.allows.

I lack the math to take on either 'pro' or 'con' factions, but suddenly finding 'Milky Way' has an extra 15~~20%, perhaps beyond 30% mass, than previously 'weighed' suggests that many, many theorists are now arguing from bad data.

May 02, 2015
You bet Nik, here is the synopsis of it:

In 2002, Heidi Newberg (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) and colleagues found several clumps in the density of stars at the disk's outermost edge, a clumpy structure now called the Monoceros Ring. Looking out along the disk with the galactic center behind us, we see the structure 30,000 light-years from the Sun, 60,000 light-years from the galactic center.

Astronomers later found another structure called the Triangulum Andromeda Stream, beyond the Monoceros Ring. This one seems to lie something like 80,000 light-years from the galactic center, beyond where we think the disk ends.

Next they found four separate structures, two of them the Monoceros and Triangulum Andromeda , plus two more lying between us and Monoceros. The closest is about 6,000 light-years out from the Sun, with each subsequent structure lying roughly 6,000 light-years beyond the previous one, almost like evenly spaced lumps.

May 02, 2015
@ STRJ
I cannot deny your point, only offer my own excuse.
Why would you do that? I have expressed my own frustration here so many times and will probably do it many times more; it must be part of some acceptance psychological process. I have come to view all the comments, from insignificant to enlightening ones, as freedom of speech exercises and to quote Voltaire 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'; this way, they cannot be so bad after all.

May 02, 2015
TechnoCreed, I cannot deny your point, only offer my own excuse. While I have doubts
...
heavier than rhetoric, creating a completely powerless animal outside the reach of this basic instinctual capacity. I simply want to know how this system exists and functions, and even if the final answers aren't here, the questions must start somewhere.

Maybe, you follow the money, how do you reshape "Modern Physics", I have spoken with PhD's in theoretical physics, nuclear engineers, etc. Modern Physics and the silly Standard Model have a fixation based upon the same one's who won papers about the same, .. obviously dismissive if for the sake of loss of face, i.e. Human Nature!

May 02, 2015
@rufus
Only thing, these articles are more like spam.
So it means that these articles piss you off :-0
It also means that being here somehow tortures you :-0
Still here you are! You must really be masochistic; oh well, to everyone their own fantasies.

May 02, 2015
@rufus
Only thing, these articles are more like spam.
So it means that these articles piss you off :-0
It also means that being here somehow tortures you :-0
Still here you are! You must really be masochistic; oh well, to everyone their own fantasies.

No, not at all, all of this is really new, I thought the big bang and steady state were unverifiable ideas. Mass, I've been looking into this as a hobby. No I welcome feedback that challenges me. Talk "smack". No harm, no foul, a sorta black thang! It's not emotional at all, i.e. if you're not having fun, get out the game!

If you get dissed don't take it personal, call me or raise, but you better have the cards, else ...

May 02, 2015
I've been working, just found the time, semi-retired, to look into what I was dubious about when I took modern physics and quantum mechanics at the same time. I just sat down, with loads of experience, blah, blah, fixed a few errors I'd made in my past thinking, i.e. hobby & .. WTF! Couldn't find the speed of the wave-front in a vector space translatable to either! Sorta obvious with the speed of a wavelet passing us either longer or shorter, because that reflects the speed of the wave-front, how fast does it go by? No I'm cool. Let's share, somebody pick up a Nobel! It's 4-sure, out there!

May 02, 2015
I've been working, just found the time, semi-retired, to look into what I was dubious about when I took modern physics and quantum mechanics at the same time. I just sat down, with loads of experience, blah, blah, fixed a few errors I'd made in my past thinking, i.e. hobby & .. WTF! Couldn't find the speed of the wave-front in a vector space translatable to either! Sorta obvious with the speed of a wavelet passing us either longer or shorter, because that reflects the speed of the wave-front, how fast does it go by? No I'm cool. Let's share, somebody pick up a Nobel! It's 4-sure, out there!

May 02, 2015
Particles, i.e. matter does not change shape because somebody confused a reflection and the force of gravity.

May 02, 2015
Using the term "conspiracy" surely helped to attract attention to this paper.
Not all of it is sound attention, though.
A lot of the above reaction bring forward pseudoscience, according to the definition at
http://en.wikiped...science.
An example of this:

What's missing using charge to calculate gravity between two objects, i.e. superimposed charge centers of a stable mass? The time varying field the "masses" exist within!

Some other reactions are imho incomprehensible.
All of this was brought about by the single word "conspiracy" !

Either conspiracy, misguidance, or both. I humbly use misguidance, the other, outside my non-controllable domain and beyond. bad ba.

May 02, 2015
You need to cement it into your brain that Rotation Curves NEVER EVER apply to Ellipticals,

I believe that you are wrong. Give a argument based on accepted science and publications why this would be so.

.........simply go right back up the Commentary & all of my previous of my postings, it's all there.

May 02, 2015
TechnoCreed, because I feel a bit ashamed of myself for taking on a task that is unwinnable for the sake of alleviating my own frustration. It kind of feels like escapism, which doesn't address the actual problem.

Rufus, NASA's ten year budget could be paid for by the global profits from an Avengers movie. You can't be sitting there watching trillions of dollars and a million dead people bleed out of the earth in the Middle East and yell "science is using all my money!"

Money, I don't care about money, juz .., anyway ellipse probably are shaped by a field outside the galaxy. If the galaxy was within an accelerating frame , first the state must assemble as a rigid body relative to the field to satisfy equilibrium conditions. Consider the magnitude of this quadrant of an infinite space, until we can actually see and inspect the last source of light ...

But I do like getting paid just like everyone else.

May 02, 2015
SuperThunderRocketJockey & TechnoCreed, couldn't agree more. Sometimes, as a layman, I get utterly confused with some comments because they argue against this & that and how mainstream is all wrong. Then they seem, to me that is, to defend their position by saying that GR,SR, QM etc isn't needed/is wrong blah blah. Of course we don't need these at the everyday level and classical physics does a good job. To quote just one Prof.,J.D.Walecka 'Newton's Laws hold over a tremendous range..' '..of at least 37 orders of magnitude...'. However, such people also support and write on, the 'modern phyisics' which answers some contadictions posed by classical physics. Car crash experts use classical equations to calculate velocities etc. and I see no reason to suppose the same doesn't work for a galaxy (non-R that is). However, if you're work is with cosmology or particle research then classical doesn't coincide with observation. This is the reality isn't it!

May 03, 2015
SuperThunderRocketJockey & TechnoCreed, couldn't agree more. Sometimes, as a layman, I get utterly confused with some comments because they argue against this & that and how mainstream is all wrong. Then they seem, to me that is, to defend their position by saying that GR,SR, QM etc isn't needed/is wrong blah blah. Of course we don't need these at the everyday level and classical physics does a good job. To quote just one Prof.,J.D.Walecka 'Newton's Laws hold over a tremendous range..' '..of at least 37 orders of magnitude...'. However, such people also support and write on, the 'modern phyisics' which answers some contadictions posed by classical physics. Car crash experts use classical equations to calculate velocities etc. and I see no reason to suppose the same doesn't work for a galaxy (non-R that is). However, if you're work is with cosmology or particle research then classical doesn't coincide with observation. This is the reality isn't it!

May 03, 2015
@rufusgwarren Well if you have to ask that then you're in need of revision.

May 03, 2015
@SuperThunderRocketJockey, Ha, yes even Star Trek TNG used the same but there it was lights.

May 03, 2015
Orphan wrote, "If there is time dilation it will be constant for both the red and blue shifts, therefore irrelevant to this conversation."

Oh, not at all. Time dilation isn't a constant, it's a variable based on the relative motions of the compared objects. The greater is the relative difference in velocity, the more time dilation there will be. This is true whether time dilation to distant cosmological objects is reciprocal, as under SR, or directional.

The difference between the two versions of time dilation is that with reciprocal time dilation, both moving objects experience the same time dilation (more if faster, less if slower), so it drops out of the equation and you get actual velocities from your measurements. Faster velocity differences means there's more time dilation, but both objects experience it relative to each other, so it doesn't matter. But if that's not true, if time dilation is directional, then failing to correct for it yields incorrect velocities.

May 03, 2015
I just went to the trouble of checking you 30 or so posts
and could not find anything coherent there.
My suspicion is that you have nothing to show.
According to the "comment guidelines" all your posts should be deleted imho.

........because the Inverse Square Law as applied to Newtonian Gravity is beyond your comprehension, not to speak of the Einstein Field Equations in General Relativity.

Look, you really don't have a Humble Opinion. Your objectivity is no different than many others who show up on a science website proffering opinions based on some "funny farm science" site on which they've recently been spending prodigious amounts of time.

Now you go on the Ignore.

May 03, 2015
because the Inverse Square Law as applied to Newtonian Gravity is beyond your comprehension, not to speak of the Einstein Field Equations in General Relativity.

Your posting style should earn you an IP ban. That is a no-brainer.
..........the "posting style" is called science, that's what Newtonian Gravity, Inv Sq Law & Einstein Field Equations for gravity are about, but for you DM enthusiasts it's all about your Dark Magic cosmic fairy dust.

Look, I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or her sister DM Cosmic Fairy Dust. I suspect that until you can learn to do the Differential Equations in Einstein's General Relativity the concept of Newtonian Gravity behind which we launch & land space vehicles all over the solar system will forever be a mystery to you.

May 03, 2015
..........the "posting style" is called science,

I think you need help.
.........you do, and the cure for what ails you is called Science.

May 03, 2015
..........the "posting style" is called science,

I think you need help.
.........you do, and the cure for what ails you is called Science.

Science, something like measuring a stick of length X moving past you from front to back would be the speed of the stick, X/t! Why is this not true for an invariant wavelet? It's not time and space, it's the dark matter within your brain. Wow! It's longer, what's longer? A magical trick, displacement of attention! I am talking about two different truths to explain, one. not one to explain two. Even the one is self referent then should be a fractal space. Not the work actually defining the whole from the known constituents. Instead, seeking more into of the elemental, based upon ... or WTF!

May 03, 2015
Rufus : "I don't care about money"

The scientific method of Rufus.

Mimath, somewhere along the way, somehow, someone figured out how to actually make someone look at four fingers and not only say five, but believe it. I always thought that was the most ridiculous part of 1984, now I see it everywhere. https://www.youtu...V9w4B0eg

TV, the internet. You can find an escape with satellite radio. Or just hang out with me as we repair our thinking!

May 03, 2015
.......because the Inverse Square Law as applied to Newtonian Gravity is beyond your comprehension, not to speak of the Einstein Field Equations in General Relativity.
...

I've posted a few times with a simple fact that completely contradicts your assertions: a circle is an ellipse. Formulae that apply to a circle can justly be applied to an ellipse.

Even Harvard University says so, back in 1978.

I learned that fact in the 9th grade but you cannot, and have not addressed that fact in any of your bumbling. Instead you post off about how an ellipse is not a circle and how the two cannot be compared when anyone with basic geography knowledge would know better... and trigonometry would bury your ideas just as well.

As much as I'd like to suggest your posts be removed, sometimes we have to keep the drivel so we can show others where stupidity lies.

May 03, 2015
to an ellipse.

Even Harvard University says so, back in 1978.

I learned that fact in the 9th grade but you cannot, and have not addressed that fact in any of your bumbling. Instead you post off about how an ellipse is not a circle and how the two cannot be compared when anyone with basic geography knowledge would know better... and trigonometry would bury your ideas just as well.

As much as I'd like to suggest your posts be removed, sometimes we have to keep the drivel so we can show others where stupidity lies.

My 0.02$, depending upon your position within the frame, an ellipse "can" appear as a circle! But, you cannot make a circle into an ellipse without a force. i.e. or an instability. May 03, 2015 ts a circle! But, you cannot make a circle into an ellipse without a force. i.e. or an instability. But you can make it appear as an ellipse but the forces would be different, so is it definable with the physics or would be a small shift, as function of position. i.e. frequency shift. May 03, 2015 Which is it, observation or an undefined field response? May 03, 2015 Hi abecedarian & mytwocts. :) Can't stay long, and can't say too much at this time, but I must point out, however briefly... @abecedaran: Be careful to distinguish between 'pure maths/geometry' abstract analytical constructs/outputs and reality physics dynamics/situations. The galactic neighborhood is full of changing positional/motional effects that every skerrick of mass/forces is associated with. Unless you know the full content/interactions involved, any facile remote observation/analysis/interpretation will be misleading drivel (as you like to put it). As rufusgwarren above just beat me to pointing out, there are no 'circles' in dynamical reality; only in abstract static analytical constructs. @mytwocts: There are more ban-worthy types posting here than those you subjectively picked on (for whatever reasons you may have). Please stick to the science arguments and leave the spamming of personality/ego-tripping irrelevances to those other more ban-worthy types, hey? Thanks. :) May 03, 2015 Resolved: As I am spending the summer in the Channel Isles I am going to get a job at phys.org even if its emptying trash and harvest some IP addresses. I have had it with these legends-in-their-own-mind trolls. You've been told to shove off and here you still are. Fine. You were warned. May 03, 2015 Using the term "conspiracy" surely helped to attract attention to this paper. Not all of it is sound attention, though. A lot of the above reaction bring forward pseudoscience, according to the definition at Have you seen this on another post? It checks out and is very thought provoking. Who's the tool? Possibly the site is for the trolls, which would make us the dissonant voices. I'm sure they make a lot more money off of them than us. I intend to find out first hand. Consider: After being founded in 2004, the site became an asset of Omicron Technology, LTD (English) in 2008, when the current editor-in-chief took over (two year process finalized in 2008). Immediately after that, Omicron Technology, LTD was dissolved and moved from London to the Isle of Man. No further documents have been filed and the principals are operating an unregistered corporation that they explicitly dissolved. Immediately thereafter outbrain, adblade and taboola scam... May 03, 2015 adverts started appearing on the pages and the denier trolls started showing up regularly. They've even tried to anonymize the domain name. We don't know they aren't taking payments to allow the troll trash. I'll bet they are. No financial statements now to say one way or the other and they're offshore. Convenient. May 03, 2015 you post off about how an ellipse is not a circle and how the two cannot be compared .....have not been engaged with anyone here in such a discussion, it appears Dark Magic cosmic fairy dust has gotten between your eyes & the computer screen & you're unable to read it clearly. when anyone with basic geography knowledge would know better... and trigonometry would bury your ideas just as well ..........as for me I've had five semesters of Calculus. Sort of sounds to me like just because you've had a course in Trigonometry that you imagine you have exceedingly rare proficiency in the math department. sometimes we have to keep the drivel so we can show others where stupidity lies. When comparing your proficiency in Trigonometry to my 5 semesters of Calculus, I'd have to conclude your "stupidity" & "drivel" comments are relative comparisons when comparing my proficiency in math to yours. May 03, 2015 The new media as a sounding board & Translation Ancient Egyptian ... All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The new media. Ideas are free, the work to get "something from it" takes capital. So maybe give the idea an award for its worth, or fraction there of based upon .... "So don't be mad, Brad.", what do you have in it? A great Ba deserves a great reward, maybe less extravagant than the ancient Egyptians. The reward was for the gifts it gave, not for the idea. May 03, 2015 Orphan wrote, "We may be getting the actual velocity wrong, but not the constant ratio as any time dilation effects will be constant, which is the point of this article is it not ?" But it's not a constant. As a galaxy rotates, different parts of it are showing us different red shifts. It's the difference in red shift from different points in the galaxy that is the root of rotational velocity estimation. If time dilation is directional, the uncorrected difference is exaggerated and velocities are overstated. Note that I am not saying that correcting red shift measurements for time dilation will make dark matter go away; I don't know if it will. I haven't performed those calculations. I don't think anyone has. But if time dilation is directional, then it's definitely a do-over. We'll get different rotational velocities. May 03, 2015 Orphan wrote, "Furthermore if what you are saying was true, then we would be seeing different and seemingly random differences in speed for all the masses in all the spiral and elliptical galaxies we have observed." Galaxies are always going to obey physical laws in their rotations. Rotational velocities for galaxies will still be interesting variables in calculating their masses. The problem we face is galaxies *appear* to be violating the physical laws we understand by rotating too fast for the masses we can detect in them. And so we are imagining unseen distributed masses to account for it - masses composed of what, nobody knows. However, if directional time dilation is true, then we are overstating those rotational velocities. Some part of the dark matter we infer from calculating mass based on observation is not real, but an artifact of mistaken theory. We can answer this question with experiments to confirm or invalidate reciprocal time dilation. May 03, 2015 galaxies *appear* to be violating the physical laws we understand by rotating too fast for the masses we can detect in them. And so we are imagining unseen distributed masses to account for it - masses composed of what, nobody knows. In 2002, Heidi Newberg (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) and colleagues found several clumps in the density of stars at the disk's outermost edge, a clumpy structure now called the Monoceros Ring. Looking out along the disk with the galactic center behind us, we see the structure 30,000 light-years from the Sun, 60,000 light-years from the galactic center. Astronomers later found another structure called the Triangulum Andromeda Stream, beyond the Monoceros Ring. This one seems to lie something like 80,000 light-years from the galactic center, beyond where we think the disk ends. Next they found four separate structures, two of them the Monoceros and Triangulum Andromeda , plus two more lying between us and Monoceros. ..........cont'd May 03, 2015 cont'd ..........and Triangulum Andromeda , plus two more lying between us and Monoceros. The closest is about 6,000 light-years out from the Sun, with each subsequent structure lying roughly 6,000 light-years beyond the previous one, almost like evenly spaced lumps. Long story made short, there's a lot of stuff out we're only recently discovering, although I wouldn't say 2002 is all that recent. May 03, 2015 @TheOrphan Based on all the observations so far we have to accept that dark matter whatever it is, has a very low interactive coefficient, hence all the observation variances. Some observations agree with MOND, this implies that the galaxy is older and has equalised. Some observations agree with simple Newtonian Gravity, this implies it is a younger galaxy. As far as I can see elliptical and spiral formations have nothing to do with it. Do you have a proper mental model for CDM? (Forget the Lambda it is another subject.) May 03, 2015 I'm becoming blinded with stuff. Let's look at it this way, if the light is blue shifted think, WTF! Because .. a structure of the totality of space may be slightly different. The effects of everything light encounters within its path has not been accounted, i.e over time as space. The medium has a value for dispersion, and impedance, not as a function of space but as a function of the stuff in it. The red-shift, i,e, GR misconception of length and time as absolute speed, i.e. a specific measure as a constant, not the measured or defined wave-front. re-Think! Anyway you are looking at the galaxy then you see how the matter moves, should be able to create a 3 D view. Don't know about the blind spot but ... the effect of distance ie esp. and mu May 03, 2015 Anyway, what sort of media do we see the wavelength spreading or contracting? Before we settle the distribution issue,ie, a measure of dark matter if you wish ... But before you say a thing is moving too fast, first compensate for the rate of time flow due same as the percent diff in wavelength ... laminar flow, obvious sate of equilibrium ... but ??? May 03, 2015 Hi TechnoCreed, I have two possible models for CDM... One is a state of the supervoid, if you consider G as a force across a distance, this implies a "Very Weak Skin" interaction in the supervoid itself. The other is the WIMP model. In all honesty I currently think they are both accurate depending on the circumstance. And I'm inclined to think of Galaxy Rotation using the first model at this point. (Which I'm sure will raise ire in some :-) ) Cool! It is pretty much the best way to describe that with the least amount of words; I like that :-) I know that, just through observation, there is no 100% way of being sure of what we are dealing with. Still CDM is very convenient (it fits very well). Why, if you have a proper way to think about it, do you still question this model? Do you need to compare the way you model it with somebody else? May 03, 2015 The issue I have with WIMP's is where does the velocity come from ? Indeed, The momentum of dark matter is intriguing and complex, but we first have to figure out what we are talking about; are they WIMPs, are they axions or something else? Nobody knows yet. The answer to that is tied up in the question of the physical nature of dark matter... But it is undeniable that dark matter has momentum. (I might come back to this subject later.) Cont. May 03, 2015 In the "Skin State of Supevoid" model, it's an easy relationship with the SuperMassive black hole rotational speed. With WIMPS it's a huge question mark. I think WIMPS are the reason Nebula form, and possibly may even lead to the SuperMassive Black hole formation. The Boomerang Nebula is a great example of this happening as we speak. When you look at the Boomerang Nebula there is "Strange" turbulence areas at the outermost edges which imply more "Invisible" forces of a magnitude so large it's daunting. I might be wrong but, from those lines, I can sense some very abstract conception of DM. I have a way to explain DM to people that is more concrete. It is a very simple model easy to explain and to understand; to quote A.E. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Are you interested? May 04, 2015 Orphan wrote, "The time dilation for any speed below 0.6 C is negligible / non existent." Untrue. It's *small.* But since 1975, spectrum shifting is exactly the method they use to determine velocities. GPS satellites are moving at a very small fraction of .6 C relative to Earth. Yet if you do not adjust for time dilation, the geopositions you get are quite erroneous. "I can't see how the observers' position relative to an object could affect the objects time dilation whatsoever." Not his position, but his velocity relative to the velocity of the other object. May 04, 2015 I can see the frustration here. It comes from being caught in the paradigms that were around since Newton's days. A lot about elliptical galaxies is correct. However they do have spin but it appears concentrated in the galaxy core. Outside that core the motion of stars appears less planar when compared to spiral galaxies and more genuinely randomly "elliptical" about the central region (which has a "black hole") leading to mostly externally visible radial motion being seen in the distance. Susskind and Maldacena are right, the basic paradigm is wrong, we are seeing gross quantum entanglement at all scales causing this behavior. The entire structure is a BTZ traversable Black Hole/Wormhole ... as are most other "entangled things"... embedded in an external two dimensional spacetime AdS2/CFT Black Hole interior existing in an overall holographic Universe. The two types of Galaxies are similar being both "wormholes" and there never was "Dark Matter"... that is a "conspiracy" May 04, 2015 Hi TechnoCreed, I have two possible models for CDM... One is a state of the supervoid, if you consider G as a force across a distance, this implies a "Very Weak Skin" interaction in the supervoid itself. The other is the WIMP model. In all honesty I currently think they are both accurate depending on the circumstance. And I'm inclined to think of Galaxy Rotation using the first model at this point. (Which I'm sure will raise ire in some :-) ) Cool! It is pretty much the best way to describe that with the least amount of words; I like that :-) I know that, just through observation, there is no 100% way of being sure of what we are dealing with. Still CDM is very convenient (it fits very well). Why, if you have a proper way to think about it, do you still question this model? Do you need to compare the way you model ... ? In other words, the effect due to the summation of the fields near becoming asymptotic. Cool! But does not require or need, DM. May 04, 2015 Sure fire away bud :-) Ok, just a few words before presenting this. My goal is not to present 'the ultimate' model of DM but to vulgarize it in a way that anyone can say: 'I understand that'. My way to explain it is pretty straight forward when the other person is right beside me, but I never did this online. That is why I am looking for a person that is willing to give it some thoughts and maybe help me to 'package' it. Most of it uses a primary level physics experiment so simple that it can be done as a thought experiments. Still the act of doing this experiment conveys a lot. It is already pretty late and the week-end is over with so I will be pretty basic. If you have questions, you will have to wait a little bit. What's more, I prefer that you do some mental work with the model before you ask those questions. Cont. May 04, 2015 I ... holographic Universe. The two types of Galaxies are similar being both "wormholes" and there never was "Dark Matter"... that is a "conspiracy" Whoa, cowboy. First a black hole is a gigantic amount of particles. A definable state. Assuming only two elemental particles. We got two building blocks guys. That's it. One set of equations defined for each properly defined vector space. I prefer to think of the field and the set of particles as one space-time. That would be my space. Then I would program all known atomic structures. Have one machine finding stability at pressure, i.e. volume, ... So let a set of computers do our research, we simply ask for ... May 04, 2015 So here it is: Before doing this experiment remember that since there is 5X more DM than ordinary matter and will maintain the same overall shape as the galaxy. Picture the size of a galaxy (where the bulk of the mass is) as more twice as wide as it visually shows. Twice the width means 8X the volume. (This is what I thought you were referring to when you referred to a "Very Weak Skin"). When I will use the word galaxy it is this complete picture that you must keep in mind. N. B.: What is to be observed is at the surface. Part 1: The stupid part (the way most people visualize spiral galaxies) -Fill a large glass with water. -Stir it circularly with a spoon. -Sprinkle finely ground black pepper on the water. -Observe the result. Cont. May 04, 2015 Part 2: A little thought experiment. -Do the same thing again but try to imagine what would happen if the density of the medium, in this case the water, would increase as you go toward the center of the glass. As if the water would gradually change to dense syrup in the middle of the glass. Part 3: It presents a physical analogy for the extreme case of the thought experiment. -Fill a large glass with water. -Stir it circularly with a spoon. -Put a little canola oil in the water; just enough so that it forms a lenticular disk when the system slows down. -Sprinkle finely ground black pepper on the system. -Observe the result. The pepper on the oil should be static, the pepper on the water should be moving. Cont. May 04, 2015 How to view this physical analogy: Water = DM Oil = ordinary 'baryonic' matter In space the gravity field is generated by the total amount of mass and this gravity field has to be powerful enough so that, under its specific impulse, most of the ordinary matter migrates toward the center of a given galaxy. This happening the matter react like the denser oil. Where you could see, with the help of some black pepper, that the matter in there is more or less static. As you could also see in the model, the water reacted with the oil pretty weakly. Very much similarly in a galaxy, the DM and the ordinary matter act as if they were separated in two phases. Even if at the center of the galaxy DM and ordinary matter are flowing together, they do not interact so it is the same as the model; two phases in weak interaction. Cont. May 04, 2015 With this you can get the basic idea of my DM analogy model and, maybe, have a better mental representation of a galaxy in a LambdaCDM Universe. It is much to late for me at the moment to go any further anyway. May 04, 2015 I ... holographic Universe. The two types of Galaxies are similar being both "wormholes" and there never was "Dark Matter"... that is a "conspiracy" Whoa, cowboy. First a black hole is a gigantic amount of particles. A definable state. Assuming only two elemental particles. We got two building blocks guys. That's it Get it together... Spacetime is emergent through quantum entanglement and the wormhole is curved spacetime. Check out this simplified series of three items at Quantum Mag... https://www.quant...-er-epr/ And there is still no such thing as "Dark Matter". OK? May 04, 2015 Part 1: The stupid part (the way most people visualize spiral galaxies) -Fill a large glass with water. -Stir it circularly with a spoon. -Sprinkle finely ground black pepper on the water. -Observe the result. ..........and continuing to Part 2 & 3 of your mixing analogy. @Technocreed: Yout 3 part mixing analogy is all about electro-statics which has nothing to do with gravity. Gravity does not segregate one type of particle mass from another. There is no such thing as "isotopes of gravitons" by which gravity picks & chooses the kinds of particles it can attract or reject as electro-static & weakly interacting nuclear fields do. Stars within galaxies are not suspended within a bath of so-called aether for which you are making an analogy to the water into which you are suspending oil & pepper. I don't think you intended to make an AWT analogy here, but that's exactly what you did by creating a comparison of electro-statics to gravity. May 04, 2015 With this you can get the basic idea of my DM analogy model and, maybe, have a better mental representation of a galaxy in a LambdaCDM Universe. It is much to late for me at the moment to go any further anyway. Conjecture of structure not calculated or a definitive measure. Don't think! Define from known truths, not imaginary truths. We still think a black-hole has an infinite density. Why is "that" a thing? Too much thinking, not enough "purity." May 04, 2015 #SuperThunderRocketJockey Your article linked at https://www.psych...-america was precisely on point, but the only problem is those who need to read it won't (or can't ;<). Perhaps they might at least read one paragraph? [quote]The new elite are .... – not those who can voice the most cogent, most coherent response.[/quote] Disrespectful. Why dis the dis'ers? What is this SNL? A distaste to you, yet an opportunity for all, i.e. an undefined group with multiple modal responses. Dis'ers! What mode are you describing, a bias as to disrespect the disrespectful, but this is about physics? For precision, remove the BS from thinking when being objective. Focus! Just pick the roses, ignore the thorns. May 04, 2015 Guys, what about that recent discovery of a rippled disk, which changes spirals' mass function ?? May 04, 2015 ... But really the collective field of the many like charge centers driving the motion, of the collective collective centers, we call mass, while ignoring ... May 04, 2015 Guys, what about that recent discovery of a rippled disk, which changes spirals' mass function ?? @Nik, you've been ignored because the Commentary on this site is more about "fadism" not science. Anything that detracts from the narrative of the latest hypothetical fad is ignored or downvoted. Dark Matter is the latest "fad" & anything that detracts from the narrative is not acceptable no matter what the scientific basis is for it. Twice above I posted Commentary in response to your reference of the "rippled disk" discovery, all it got was 1 Star votes because it does not comport with the DM fad. The additional significant mass observed in the areas I pointed out in those two above posts does not enhance the DM narrative, it detracts from it, therefore your post was ignored & mine was downvoted. May 04, 2015 ... Twice above I posted ..r post was ignored & mine was downvoted. Ripples are an interesting point; however, we cannot ignore the various possible steady state conditions, .... unexpected? Food! For the mind! This can be simulated, forward and backward in time adjusting for the time dilation due to "Red-Shift" related back into the time domain for the location of an event, completely define the vector space. WTF! Wow! Adjust to a time frame where that wave is possible to define the distance. That is a result of an event! Not voo doo .. If it is not reverberating then what is it's life, i.e. a movie backward in time until this existence ... mass might not work, just consider the body of the field relative to a proton, define the motion of that set of charges ... any way if it doesn't make sense ... May 04, 2015 PS. It doesn't help explain the actual velocity differences between baryonic matter and the CDM, which in my opinion is the real question here, and no one seems to address it at all ...... Or, how'bout the possibility that "no one seems to address it" is because it has no "address"? The extreme minutiae that DM enthusiasts are going after to make the public believe this stuff exists has the same scientifically testable evidence as there is testable evidence for proving the Tooth Fairy exists. May 05, 2015 Gee, I see most have been searching the spectra for objects they may place a name. OK, what is the spectra from the disk minus the spectra from the center? Are there any polarization effects not accounted? Or visa versa. What are the dominant polarization modes. All three pieces of data. How does this compare to the amplitude responses. Is this definable, i.e. energy flux therefore particle flux, and our priori information obtained empirically. May 05, 2015 @Nik_2213 I've tried to locate info on your ripple/mass function question. Below are quotes from a paper. At the beginning of the paper (March 1 2015) reads '..the initial mass function of the stellar populations is not important here...', '...Our findings might suggest that the Monoceros and TriAnd Rings, along with the north near and south middle structures, are part of the disk. These rings appear to fit into the pattern of spiral arms and density wave...and the reasonThe spiral density wave pattern, though possibly not the spiral arms themselves...The fact that stars in these structures appear to be rotating in approximately circular orbits in the same direction as the disk would then be explained...' There is no mention of DM throughout. source arXiv:1503.00257v1 [astro-ph.GA] Hope it's useful. May 05, 2015 So what's your reasoning for the overall speed distribution of large galactic structures throughout the known universe ? What are you labeling "large galactic structures"? If you're thinking Spirals, you don't know much about the population of galactic structures. The numerous giant Ellipticals pale our MW to insignificance by 50-100 times & their gravity dynamics is in perfect accord with Newtonian gravity. I.E. Every single galactic structure we have observed to date exhibits this anomalous behavior Define "speed distribution". you have zero input as to any other feasible reasons or an appropriate name for it for that matter. It's called Newtonian gravity & the Inverse Square Law, spend some time on it. Pull your head in buddy, the chip on your shoulder is going to break your neck shortly. I don't have a weighty pile of Cosmic Fairy Dust on my shoulder occluding scientifically testable analyses of gravity fields, that's your problem, not mine. May 05, 2015 Pull your head in buddy, the chip on your shoulder is going to break your neck shortly. I don't have a weighty pile of Cosmic Fairy Dust on my shoulder occluding scientifically testable analyses of gravity fields, ... Newton only had the 1/r^2, i.e. center to superimposed center. Maxwell gives us dynamics of the electron and the proton, "charge" self assembles, ... consider these as your superposition! Include the fields. May 05, 2015 Pull your head in buddy, the chip on your shoulder is going to break your neck shortly. I don't have a weighty pile of Cosmic Fairy Dust on my shoulder occluding scientifically testable analyses of gravity fields, ... Newton only had the 1/r^2, i.e. center to superimposed center. Maxwell gives us dynamics of the electron and the proton, "charge" self assembles, ... consider these as your superposition! Include the fields. Dynamics: Turbulence decreases when not sourced. May 05, 2015 Here's two pictures (The first two that matched this article, there are thousands more) They are Rotation Curves of Spirals, not Ellipticals which don't have Rotation Curves. I challenge to find a graph of the Roatation Curve of an Elliptical. You're problem continues to be that the DM Cosmic Fairy Dust you're so enamoured with continues to so badly occlude your vision that you're unable to comprehend the graphs in front of your eyeballs & recognize they are solely Rotation Curves of Spirals. May 05, 2015 Look at the picture at the top of this article Benni. Yeah, a Spiral beneath which is captioned a graph of the Rotation of a typical Spiral. You are denying the proof that this article has presented, from Empirical observation. The real question has become one of whether you even know what an Elliptical Galaxy looks Like? I wonder if you even know Elliptical galaxies make up most of the galactic structures in the Universe........do you even know that? Yeah, 2/3 of them, leaving the remainder 1/3 of stars inside of Spirals. And hey Orph, here's another one for you; our Mllky Way lies within a galaxy cluster called Virgo. Did you know that? And do you know what is right smack dab in the middle of that cluster? A huge giant Elliptical 50-100 times bigger than our MW. Did you know that? Our MW is a satellite galaxy to that Elliptical which is probably lensing us into an Einstein Ring a billion light years to the opposite side of it. May 05, 2015 @Benni Yeah, a Spiral beneath which is captioned a graph of the Rotation of a typical Spiral. It might be time to change your glasses. http://www.keckob..._800.png May 05, 2015 Are your reading this on a smartphone Benni ? The bottom half of that picture is of an Elliptical Galaxy not a spiral Benni, it's obvious you haven't even read this article. Here's the whole picture (Care of Ultron one of the first comments on this thread) ... http://www.swinbu...acy.html moron [mawr-on, mohr-] noun 1. Someone that verdantly repeats bullshit for an emotional derived reason. (See Bennis' comments on Phys.org) Actually, near the center is a spiral, the equal velocity field degrades the closer to the center. So yeah, it's both and ellipsoidal thang and a spiral, i.e Physics of Votex May 05, 2015 @Benni Yeah, a Spiral beneath which is captioned a graph of the Rotation of a typical Spiral. t might be time to change your glasses. ............and add to that, right next to the graph is spelled the word: Spiral Galaxy...................Techno, Orphy, definitely you two need a change in visual perception, maybe it's called, "learn how to read", new glasses won't solve your problem unless they're so covered in Cosmic Fairy Dust they need a good lens cleaner. Look, it isn't that hard, just scroll to the top of the page, clear out the Cosmic Fairy Dust & it's all right there, minus the DM Cosmic Fairy Dust. Hey one of you, provide a link to a site with a graph of an Elliptical galaxy. We'll just stay away from the Spirals for the time being. May 05, 2015 Hi TheOrphan. :) I am curious about the implications/interpretations of the graph you linked to in answer to Benni. Your link: https://www.astro...c_Es.gif That graph has a caption reading: Profiles of circular velocities in elliptical galaxies as derived from velocity dispersion profiles and higher moment profiles...". I am wondering if that "derivation" is purely abstract maths projection of instantaneous locations/directions, or is it a derivation from longterm observation of actual paths/trajectories for all the individual stars. Or whether they merely 'averaged' and 'projected via statistical methodologies/assumptions what they 'expected' the 'orbits' would be in reality. Just curious what you think that graph actually means for the factual basis versus opinions/assumptions basis for either sides 'arguments/evidence' presented in discussion between you and Benni. Thanks. Back tomorrow to see what transpires. :) May 06, 2015 @ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am really good too, thanks for asking. I am wondering if that "derivation" is purely abstract maths projection of instantaneous locations/directions, Nice try but that shows how you can not be even close to being science trained in real science. Get ready to be embarrassed you. It does not look good to anybody for ol Ira-Skippy to be the one pointing out the simple stuffs for you. from longterm observation of actual paths/trajectories for all the individual stars Nobody not even Methuselah lived long enough to observe that thing. It takes years and years just to see a star move even if he is near by in our own galaxy. You did not know that? Ol Hubble-Skippy and van-Maanen-Skippy had the really long argument over that about a long time ago. Hubble-Skippy won the argument, they are too far away to see em move. Don't forget to leave the silly looking pointy cap at the door when you leave. May 06, 2015 I'm no expert in Astrophysics ......or anything else in the field of nuclear physics. I know how to design nuclear reactors & electronic circuitry. What do you do by comparison? How many semesters of Calculus have you had? I've had 5. Ever studied the Differential Equations in Einstein's GR? but every article I've read about Elliptical Galaxy rotation contradicts Bennis' assertions completely. ......of course every article you've ever read "about Elliptical Galaxy rotation" contradicts my points because you only read those kinds of articles that support your biased point of view. Try reading another viewpoint & expand your horizons & get off your narrowly contrived point of view. Keep reading points of view for a long enough period of time that 2+2=5 and you're just the type that could be easily swayed to that conclusion, and why wouldn't you be one of those types, you already believe in the DM Cosmic Fairy Dust narrative. May 06, 2015 Motion, simplistic. The frequency density function/section? ... calculable over all space. Definitive initial conditions from simulation ... Then the discussion begins, analysis based upon the elemental to the macroscopic! ... known physics, simply lack of effort! The nonsense begins to boil and turbulence in conversation and physics increases, only from the mind of man! Reality, a self assembly of the blocks, its a child's game, not for misguided PhD's. May 06, 2015 Hi Benni, Now I know why I put you on the ignore list. You are a complete blowarse, you haven't addressed the observational anomalies at all, you just keep bleating on about how smart and qualified you are. Even though everything you have said is a complete fabrication of your twisted little EGO. I really feel sorry for anyone that actually has to work with a Big headed know it all ignoramus such as yourself. I apologize to anyone else on this thread that has to read my vitriolic response to you. And just for the record Benni, I have an IQ of 236, and that is not a lie, I've never had to lie about my IQ or comprehension skills. End of conversation. Vitriolic and a self reference to a sorting algorithm, that is actually meaningless unless you fit someone's idea of intelligence, defined by the ignorant, to oneself. I'm self definable, therefore everyone has the same gifts, regardless of human miscarriage of knowledge. Awaken! May 06, 2015 Vitriolic and a self reference to a sorting algorithm, that is actually meaningless unless you fit someone's idea of intelligence, defined by the ignorant, to oneself. I'm self definable, therefore everyone has the same gifts, regardless of human miscarriage of knowledge. Awaken! 'splanation for simple minds: IQ 236 would bring such a person at 9 standard deviations from the norm. There could be one such person if the total population of the earth would be 11290000000000000000. This represents roughly 1411250000 times the actual population of planet earth. TheOrphan used a number deliberately high so that a 'NORMAL' person would understand that it was derisive. Sadly his attempt was vain; somebody had to come and explain that it was SARCASM. You understand now or need some more 'splanation? May 06, 2015 @TechnoCreed Sorry bud but that is my actual IQ. Sorry yourself Skippy. You should have let Techno-Skippy's mistake give a convenient out of saying such a foolish thing. I bet Hawking-Skippy and Einstein-Skippy didn't spend their days writing postums and arguing with Bennie-Skippy, and their IQ's are fifty, that's right 50 plus points lower than yours. The only person in history that ever had an IQ as high as yours is Really-Skippy but he spends a lot time writing on the comment boards too instead of doing genus stuffs,,,,, not the silly stuffs like Hawking-Skippy and Einstein-Skippy getting their names written about in a gazillion books and schools. Put the silly looking pointy cap on head for now but you leave him at the door when you leave for the next couyon to wear. May 06, 2015 @TechnoCreed Sorry bud but that is my actual IQ. What a waste. Potential without wisdom. May 06, 2015 Assuming a global population of 7.4 billion people. With 100 as the normalized mean score you would get after testing a significant number of persons and every 15 points over 100 representing 1 standard deviation (as should be). It is possible to calculate the expected population that has an exceptional IQ. Here is how it goes: There is only 0.135% of the global population that has an IQ of 145 (3 standard deviations). Still, it represents 9990000 persons. At 4 sigmas (IQ of 160) 234358 persons. At 5 sigmas (IQ of 175) 2132 persons. At 6 sigmas (IQ of 190) 7 geniuses. … 9 sigmas (IQ of 235) 0.00000000083546 ingenuus. Congratulation in some given time, many million years I suppose, you should be a whole person. May 06, 2015 OK, ... Sorry if this simple fact hurts your feelings Bro's 8-) Shame, with no real accomplishments. Try the states or a pair, i.e. an electron and a proton. Each initial condition of the electron varies from 0 to +/- infinity, use charge [x1,x2,x3,x4,Vo] allow the direction of Vo to vary from 0 to infinity,[V1,V2,V3} as orthogonal vectors. Will each of the 5 quadrants yield symmetrical symmetry? Call this state [quad1, quad2, quad3, quad4, quad5]. Show the relationship of each of the 5 quadrants, 3 dimensionally, i.e. quadrants with a unique plane.. Does this experiment define an item that may be assembled within space simply by adding this space assuming a relative possible position for the proton. Assumption, multiple protons of position and amount of time within same is calculable Does this self assemble? May 07, 2015 Since when has IQ had anything to do with Statistics ?? There's all the people in the middle. Then there's people like me outside the curve, they call us Geniuses, and it may scare you , but we all have IQ's greater than 200. Mentza runs on a scale of 600 for a We just don't go on about it all that much. That is my IQ buddy, No Offense , I don't care if you believe me or not. OK, you are a freaking genius. Say something not about you. This is about physics. The way I see it, the human race has not reached the attribute, intelligence. It's a self referent, bobble head "thang". If you like, my question is an IQ test. The answer is obvious. May 07, 2015 @TheOrphan, well it seems to be a shame that no one recorded your IQ rating...which depends upon the system used. It seems that figures for the highest vary very much but A. Jelloul scored 198 in 2012 and is ranked 1 in the world..on youtube. However, WJ Sidis(1898) apparently estimated between 250-300. T Tao comes next (born 1975) estimated between 220-230 (from 'opishposh'). According to what I've read any IQ over 200 has to ESTIMATED and therefore can be incorrect. But of course IQ has no bearing on 'common sense' so that means one COULD be a genius & an idiot at the same time. Years ago a friend of mine, IQ at around 150 failed his driving test 3 times while his wife who failed maths etc at school passed 1st time. Maybe it depends where along the spiral graph one is born...Ha! May 07, 2015 Let's give up the rational for IQ. It's bogus anyway. Is there any stable state upon any number of unlike charges where the center of both charges occupy the same location at stability. The answer might astound the geniuses It's been shown the environment is the dominate factor for intelligence and wisdom . With equal training, although some are slower, we all reach the same peaks in our individual capability. Consider a savant! IQ? Note. It take longer to program a larger neural net than a smaller one. IQ. What, bigger brains finish last and have greater mind control and vision, nothing to do with IQ. It's desire and the brains application. How do you measure that? The brain is a muscle, therefore Africans have bigger and better muscle tone: hence, do they have larger brains. Lets take a look at history, when did each race development domestication. Oops, forgot, we lost domestication and replaced it with greed. Nothing to do with intellect, reasonable examples ... May 07, 2015 @rufusgwarren '...It's desire and the brains application...' Nope! That's only part of it. How you use what you've got; and if you can use what you have better than someone can use what they have, then you have the advantage. Getting back on topic, I remember reading somewhere that the BH at the center of a galaxy has a particular math (or stat) relationship with the stars and their v. Since the BH in ellipticals is more massive than in spirals what is the relational math/stat difference? Anyone help here? May 07, 2015 On the subject of IQ there is a lot of bogus on the internet. The reality is that 99.73% of adults that would be evaluated with a WAIS IV test would score between 55 and 145. Which for the sake of people like me not to feel too removed from society they say is the top 5%. The top 5% are people with an IQ betwween 130 and 145. Since when has IQ had anything to do with Statistics ?? It is all based on stats. Then there's people like me outside the curve, they call us Geniuses, and it may scare you , but we all have IQ's greater than 200. Mentza runs on a scale of 600 for a reason. Any IQ test that would give such scores are NOT NORMALIZED. There is one thing with maths is that it does not lie. On this link you will find some reliable information on the subject. http://webspace.s...nce.html May 07, 2015 I found a famous quote: "People who boast about their IQ are losers." Just copy and paste it on Google to find out who he is. What about that; I made a mistake qualifying the top 5%! Here is a Wiki on the High IQ society (Mensa) http://rationalwi..._society The funniest part is what is written concerning the top 0.000000000001 (7 sigmas) ;-p May 07, 2015 Anyone help here? First think about the spider and the wasp! Black hole is a misnomer. The experiment with the proton shows ... anyway, there is a finite density as well as form and shape. There is also a radiated field of quite an intensity... The proton was stable, however it felt acceleration. In other words trying to figure out the shape is like .. preparing the land for a cement flour with a spec of 0 deviation in shape over an infinite time; it only see's what it sees. We however are smarter than the proton. Obvious varied oscillation throughout all space. See that space held over what we actually see against that same space for both protons and ... ahhh May 07, 2015 I found a famous quote: "People who boast about their IQ are losers." Just copy and paste it on Google to find out who he is. What about that; I made a mistake qualifying the top 5%! Here is a Wiki on the High IQ society (Mensa) http://rationalwi..._society The funniest part is what is written concerning the top 0.000000000001 (7 sigmas) ;-p Self Worship. WGAF?! Do something! Like, let's simulate matter! I could compliment your genius from my limited perspective. I just need tools! Looking to advance mankind or just yourselves? Does anybody get it? I'm asking for help. This can be done! Is anyone real? it's so simple, it's right in front of you. Just stop trying to twist the data based upon your minds eye, but let the data be your eyes into reality! IQ, com'n guys! How about foot size, I wear a size 12! May 07, 2015 @ rufus-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy me, thank you for asking. Podna, I hate to do this to you, and I really hope that ol Ira-Skippy is not going to hurt your feelings non. But Skippy, I got to ask you to turn in your silly looking pointy cap. I really hate to do it but your foolishment is not very interesting. Since I'm going to tell the peoples at physorg not to let me look at your foolishment anymore I don't think it is fair to the other couyons who work so hard to get my attentions if you keep the silly looking pointy cap that they have to work so hard for. No hard feelings okayeei? May 07, 2015 @The Orphan. :) I asked you the question advisedly, to tease out the fact that NO actual individual stars' orbits in ellipticals were observed (as even that dunce in the 'Uncle Ira' corner knows), but only 'roughly extrapolated/interpreted' from crude/mixed light info. And IQ is neither here nor there when Scientific Method is abused and misleading graphs based in confirmation biased interpretations/conclusions are called on as 'proof/evidence' of anything (recall the BICEP2 fiasco to see what I mean). Even the smartest can deceive themselves as to what is/is not 'fact'. The longer that self deception, the longer 'assumption as fact' is entrenched/promulgated via misleading graphs/maths etc. So don't be so 'certain' that everything in mainstream literature is 'fact/theory'. The main problem is that BBang/expansion Hypothesis/assumptions are being improperly treated as 'fact/theory'. PS: I have never stated my IQ, so that Ira dunce has no clue about it. Ignore his idiotic drivel. May 07, 2015 Well so much for the interruption. My question is: "Are the separate charge centers located at the same point all of the time?" Does this sound like an assumption or a fact? Please explain. If they differ in location please explain the attractive forces that would be obtained from any "mass" of particles using superposition! The thought experiment was to show that each charge actually responds to every charge in the universe, albeit infinitesimally, and mostly overridden by the near field; so using the measured field for identifiable unique events ... concentrate upon stability. May 07, 2015 @TheOrphan. :) See what I mean about IQ being moot when Scientific Method abused and confirmation bias mistakes what is or is not 'observed fact'? You just missed the point that the 'bulk' light info from distant ellipticals is received here after going through a mixmaster of processes and attenuations which local/deep space is full of. Not a 'denier', just a scientist. I know what blue/red shift is all about. But you have to realize that only 'clean' light signals can be relied upon to represent reality. The amorphous multi-phased/frequencies signals and their blue/red shifts from ellipticals (whose light has been 'scrambled' out of all reliable blue/red analysis methods capability) cannot be assumed to represent the LOCAL reality THERE. The recent Planck-Bicep2 exercises CONFIRM this is the case for ALL light info which has been through deep space travel through processes/media which makes it UNreliable for 'clean' interpretations/conclusions like you claim. More objectivity. :) May 07, 2015 "crude/mixed light info" I'd have to say that the interpretation of red / blue shift is a well founded empirically proven measurement process. We can do experiments for it, and I'm sure they have. You Dark-Matter deniers just can't face the facts. What you are all basically saying is "Nothing we observe about the Universe is accurate". (I.E. All astrophysics is bunkum) So we might as well stop looking based on your rhetoric. You all like playing semantic games to prove your intelligence yet fly off when someone point blank states theirs, If i had$1 for every person that's reacted like you lot I would have about $100. Have fun Bro's, I'm outa here. This last reply was beautiful; as expected from a learned person. May 07, 2015 So lets ignore that the constituent parts of matter create gravity, and that the thought experiment dictates every reaction has a specific signal even those random free particles that travel in"hyperspace", i.e. a myth defining faster than light. Light is transparent to light but matter has different effects, definable. Why do we keep using this "make believe?" One can see whats happening as a thought experiment, acceleration vectors a function of 1/r^2 and the EM a function of dJ/dt, J as the current density vector, or a specific change in space-time, etc.. Known science, the only paper required to fix this nonsense is to forget the 20th century! One statement, mystery solved! May 07, 2015 Hi TecnoCreed. :) Your praise would be more apt if that "learned person's" reply had not missed the whole point re IQ being moot when Scientific Method is abused and Confirmation Bias is applied in order to 'support' preconclusions from a theory based on assumptions/interpretations made to fit; and ignoring the point about Planck-Bicep2 CONFIRMING that all light/em signal analysis is compromised where the actual local/deep space effects of processes/media on that 'crude' signal data is not known precisely. Learned is as learned does, and uncritical parroted repetition of confirmation biased interpretations/exercises is not learned but naive. Learn from that Planck-Bicep2 results/conclusions and then maybe you will become learned of the correct and objective facts and reality according to Scientific Method as it should be exercised. That's what is important. Someone's IQ or reputation etc is meaningless if they are not true to science as it should be practiced. Objectively. May 07, 2015 Hi . Objectively. Are u agreeing with me? May 08, 2015 @RealityCheck, you know since I came I've learned a lot about the differences and sometimes, the wide gap, there is in opinions on science. I think, in general, that's good. As a layman I sometimes think that science sites like this one, shows that we can still THINK, sometimes we're wrong sometimes right. As far as IQ is concerned I often think of Sir I Newton, a genuis without doubt yet when I read about the man himself...aagh! I tend to disregard such things as IQ and look at the journey taken. Being right all the time is, imo, not the best way, as making mistakes and failing once or twice is part of a more interesting journey and one learns more. When I look at the bare eqs for DM it seems reasonable to assert that there is something out there we can't 'see' but when looking a bit deeper(like Planck-BICEP 2) I don't think it's that clear cut. Is there a DM conspiracy? I don't think so, but do think some are running with the DM ball too fast...the touch line might be disappointing. May 08, 2015 @RealityCheck, ..the touch line might be disappoint The pontificates, i.e. PhDs denying the non-PhD. Knowledge becomes limited to only the accepted. It has nothing to do with "knowing", neither does IQ! May 09, 2015 The cosmic vacuum is not emptyness. It have stracture and physical proterties which afect the behavior of constituent particles of matter and their energy transfer. Dark matter and energy are ocult symbols. They do not exist in reality. They are disguised mockery with the Creator, which only a lunatic could invent. May 09, 2015 The cosmic vacuum is not emptyness. It have stracture and physical proterties which afect the behavior of constituent particles of matter and their energy transfer. Dark matter and energy are ocult symbols. They do not exist in reality. They are disguised mockery with the Creator, which only a lunatic could invent. Nothing conceptually is nothing. Space is a collection of electrons and protons and the resulting fields, nothing else! That that is ... May 09, 2015 "crude/mixed light info" I'd have to say that the interpretation of red / blue shift is a well founded empirically proven measurement process. We can do experiments for it, and I'm sure they have. You Dark-Matter deniers just can't face the facts. What you are all basically saying is "Nothing we observe about the Universe is accurate". (I.E. All astrophysics is bunkum) So we might as well stop looking based on your rhetoric. You all like playing semantic games to prove your intelligence yet fly off when someone point blank states theirs, If i had$1 for every person that's reacted like you lot I would have about \$100.

Have fun Bro's, I'm outa here.

Now, that's shame! When you make statements you must be prepared to take any flak. Running away makes you appear insincere and unconvincing. And anyway debates are more interesting when there are differenet viewpoints.

May 10, 2015

Now, that's shame! When you make statements you must be prepared to take any flak. Running away makes you appear insincere and unconvincing. And anyway debates are more interesting when there are differenet viewpoints.

When we are not on topic its just the absurd human response based upon ... "No-Think.", i.e. nothing. What is the effect of a vacuum to a slightly non-vacuum is the question. Or maybe we do not understand what we are seeing.1. The red-shift measurements are in error. 2. The max velocity is in error. 3. Maybe we have the wrong concept defining space. 4. It has nothing to do with these off topic absurdities.

As for IQ, read "Flowers for Algernon"

http://www.ogleth...rnon.pdf

May 10, 2015

When we are not on topic its just the absurd human response based upon ... "No-Think.", i.e. nothing. What is the effect of a vacuum to a slightly non-vacuum is the question. Or maybe we do not understand what we are seeing.1. The red-shift measurements are in error. 2. The max velocity is in error. 3. Maybe we have the wrong concept defining space. 4. It has nothing to do with these off topic absurdities.

As for IQ, read "Flowers for Algernon"

http://www.ogleth...rnon.pdf

Help me! I see space as a 4 dimensional space, without units, i.e. the reference to a known constant: Lambda Nu = c. C is a dimension of space, nothing else. Help me define the curl in this pure space. First, what is nothing is nothing! Start with the space of a point charge.

Yea, just a bunch of ... +&-, however, mass would be a bunch of these!

May 10, 2015

Yea, just a bunch of ... +&-, however, mass would be a bunch of these!

Pick a stable relationship, from your perspective. Remember, from which direction may also be reflective! Sort out the hot and cold spots. The hot one's into you, the cold ones behind you, sort it out!

May 10, 2015
This little guy has to endure equilibrium with Mr. P. and all the little sounding perturbations to remain in orbit, flying into an invisible Mr. P , i.e not P and Mr. P, same direction, Not Mr.P and P, different direction. Calculable based upon scale, i.e. -infinity to infinity only for one particle, in 4D, based upon choice of scale, i.e. Necessary conditions, not guess!

Jun 01, 2015
Dark matter could consist of all the quantum particles on the quantum particle chart those known and unknown, space could still be an environment of quantum particles, and since they are so small only the mass of the galaxies gravity collects a higher density of them than the average density in space , and as for central core galactic masses, atoms do not exist inside those masses they are taken apart and all that remains are the quantum particles that was their construction, so that central core mass is really a quantum particle mass, which constitutes dark matter

Jun 01, 2015
Dark matter could consist of all the quantum particles on the quantum particle chart those known and unknown, space could still be an environment of quantum particles, and since they are so small only the mass of the galaxies gravity collects a higher density of them than the average density in space , and as for central core galactic masses, atoms do not exist inside those masses they are taken apart and all that remains are the quantum particles that was their construction, so that central core mass is really a quantum particle mass, which constitutes dark matter

Really!

Jun 02, 2015
You lose heat you contract your mass you have to much heat your mass expands , heat density of mass in elliptical or spirals go figure.

Jun 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.