A galaxy on the edge

March 1, 2017
This colorful image from ESO's Very Large Telescope shows NGC 1055 in the constellation of Cetus (The Sea Monster). This large galaxy is thought to be up to 15 percent larger in diameter than the Milky Way. NGC 1055 appears to lack the whirling arms characteristic of a spiral, as it is seen edge-on. However, it displays odd twists in its structure that were probably caused by an interaction with a large neighboring galaxy. Credit: ESO

Spiral galaxies throughout the Universe take on all manner of orientations with respect to Earth. We see some from above (as it were) or "face-on"—a good example of this being the whirlpool-shaped galaxy NGC 1232. Such orientations reveal a galaxy's flowing arms and bright core in beautiful detail, but make it difficult to get any sense of a three-dimensional shape.

We see other , such as NGC 3521, at angles. While these tilted objects begin to reveal the three-dimensional structure within their , fully understanding the overall shape of a requires an edge-on view—such as this one of NGC 1055.

When seen edge-on, it is possible to get an overall view of how stars—both new patches of starbirth and older populations—are distributed throughout a galaxy, and the "heights" of the relatively flat disc and the star-loaded core become easier to measure. Material stretches away from the blinding brightness of the galactic plane itself, becoming more clearly observable against the darker background of the cosmos.

Such a perspective also allows astronomers to study the overall shape of a galaxy's extended disc, and to study its properties. One example of this is warping, which is something we see in NGC 1055. The galaxy has regions of peculiar twisting and disarray in its disc, likely caused by interactions with the nearby galaxy Messier 77. This warping is visible here; NGC 1055's disc is slightly bent and appears to wave across the core.

NGC 1055 is located approximately 55 million light-years away in the constellation of Cetus (The Sea Monster). This image was obtained using the FOcal Reducer and low dispersion Spectrograph 2 (FORS2) instrument mounted on Unit Telescope 1 (Antu) of the VLT, located at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile. It hails from ESO's Cosmic Gems programme, an outreach initiative that produces images of interesting, intriguing or visually attractive objects using ESO telescopes for the purposes of education and outreach.

Explore further: Hubble sees spiral in Andromeda

Related Stories

Hubble sees spiral in Andromeda

February 10, 2017

The Andromeda constellation is one of the 88 modern constellations and should not be confused with our neighboring Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda constellation is home to the pictured galaxy known as NGC 7640.

Hubble peers into the center of a spiral

October 10, 2016

This Hubble image shows the central region of a spiral galaxy known as NGC 247. NGC 247 is a relatively small spiral galaxy in the southern constellation of Cetus (The Whale). Lying at a distance of around 11 million light-years ...

Image: Hubble captures NGC 4111

April 25, 2016

The elegant simplicity of NGC 4111, seen here in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, hides a more violent history than you might think. NGC 4111 is a lenticular, or lens-shaped, galaxy about 50 million light-years ...

A spiral galaxy in Hydra

April 9, 2012

(Phys.org) -- This image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows NGC 4980, a spiral galaxy in the southern constellation of Hydra. The shape of NGC 4980 appears slightly deformed, something which is often a sign of ...

Hubble sees a spiral within a spiral

May 28, 2012

(Phys.org) -- NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured this image of the spiral galaxy known as ESO 498-G5. One interesting feature of this galaxy is that its spiral arms wind all the way into the center, so that ESO 498-G5's ...

Recommended for you

Sun's eruptions might all have same trigger

April 26, 2017

Large and small scale solar eruptions might all be triggered by a single process, according to new research that leads to better understanding of the Sun's activity.

'Iceball' planet discovered through microlensing

April 26, 2017

Scientists have discovered a new planet with the mass of Earth, orbiting its star at the same distance that we orbit our sun. The planet is likely far too cold to be habitable for life as we know it, however, because its ...

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2017
"One example of this is warping, which is something we see in NGC 1055. The galaxy has regions of peculiar twisting and disarray in its disc, likely caused by interactions with the nearby galaxy Messier 77. This warping is visible here; NGC 1055's disc is slightly bent and appears to wave across the core."

Warping is caused by gravitational attraction caused by another galaxy? Whatever happened to the INFERRED GRAVITATIONAL ENVELOPES of DM encompassing Spiral Galaxies?

You would think massive ENVELOPES of DM making up 80-95% of the Universe would be the cause of "warping". Why were these Astronomers totally silent about the obvious? Maybe there's a Journalist around who can explain it to us?
cortezz
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2017
You complain if DM is mentioned in a article but now you also complain if its not. Get a grip
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2017
You complain if DM is mentioned in a article but now you also complain if its not. Get a grip


Hey, you "get a grip"......it's about the CONSISTENCY of the DM narrative, or just simply scrap it to the ashbin where aether pseudo-science went.

RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2017
Here is a nice image capturing both NGC 1055 and M77: http://universe-b...ommented
cortezz
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2017

Hey, you "get a grip"......it's about the CONSISTENCY of the DM narrative, or just simply scrap it to the ashbin where aether pseudo-science went.


Do you actually suggest that the scientific community should settle on one option? Either talk about dm in every article possible or trash the whole theory? No middle ground for you clearly.

I'm happy that still as a scientist I can introduce my subject how I like to. I even started one semi-serious paper with a poem and and the professors liked it.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2017
Do you actually suggest that the scientific community should settle on one option?

Of course.
Either talk about dm in every article possible or trash the whole theory?

At the 5:1 ratio it is claimed to exist at vs. baryonic matter, it has to be the major factor in every single structure from formation to current appearance...but I am in full favor of trashing the theory.
No middle ground for you clearly.

Or for anyone...it's either there dominating the baryonic matter or it isn't...where exactly is "the middle ground" regarding DM?

cortezz
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2017

Or for anyone...it's either there dominating the baryonic matter or it isn't...where exactly is "the middle ground" regarding DM?


I don't say there is or should be a middle ground regarding DM. What I tried to say was that DM should not be mentioned in every single article. One is free to do science anyway one wants as long as the scientific methods are followed.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2017


I don't say there is or should be a middle ground regarding DM. What I tried to say was that DM should not be mentioned in every single article. One is free to do science anyway one wants as long as the scientific methods are followed.

I didn't realize the scientific method had been perverted to accept a complete lack of consistency....actually, now that I recall the massive discrepancies between articles about the same subjects....I did realize it. DM has been modeled so many different ways, each to fit the specific structure the model is based on, that even though they work and pass peer review, as a collective model they add up to gibberish.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2017
@bschott
...I recall the massive discrepancies between articles about the same subjects...

Exactly what "discrepancies" do you mean? All recent models have been expressly constructed to be consistent with the observations that provide evidence for the DM effect. None of them are therefore discrepant with observation. If you think differently, please, of course, provide references.

DM has been modeled so many different ways, each to fit the specific structure the model is based on, that even though they work and pass peer review, as a collective model they add up to gibberish.


There ARE still differing opinions on the explanations for these observations (primarily DM or "MOND"-like theories). However, as well as all being consistent with observation, they produce very similar predictions, making discerning between them difficult. So, on what basis do you make the claim that recent papers add up to gibberish?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2017
What I tried to say was that DM should not be mentioned in every single article


Huh? Why not? If it were mentioned in the proportion to which you claim it exists throughout the Universe, then it should be mentioned in 80-95% of every picture & article posted here. I mean like why do you think I bring it up in 80-95% of every post I make here........ just keeping up with the spirit of Cosmic Fairies & their favorite Dust.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2017
Exactly what "discrepancies" do you mean?....provide references.

@ RNP - OK, first we have the halo to explain the rotation curve of barred spirals,
https://en.wikipe...on_curve
In each model, the DM behaves differently as far as how it structures itself in order to reproduce what the observation is that the model is trying to replicate. Each individual model has holes and attempting to roll them into one model doesn't work.

RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2017
@bschott
@ RNP - OK, first we have the halo to explain the rotation curve of barred spirals,


I am sorry, but I can make no sense of your post. You make a whole bunch of confused claims that are certainly not supported by the Wikipedia page that you linked. (BTW bars have nothing to do with it).

You say;

In each model, the DM behaves differently as far as how it structures itself in order to reproduce what the observation is that the model is trying to replicate. Each individual model has holes and attempting to roll them into one model doesn't work.


The DM structure of galaxies seems to depend on their size and structure, as well as presumably having a stochastic contribution, meaning that they vary from galaxy to galaxy. But I can make no sense of what you mean by models having " holes and attempting to roll them into one model".
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2017
@RNP - I had actually linked 4 different articles that for some reason were removed from my post when I edited one thing. Let me try again with the rest:
Inter-galactic filament
http://www.space....ers.html
Solar system filaments:
https://www.nasa....k-matter]https://www.nasa....k-matter[/url]
Disk in the galactic plane:
https://www.nasa....k-matter]https://www.nasa....k-matter[/url]

Now -


In each model, the DM behaves differently as far as how it structures itself in order to reproduce what the observation is that the model is trying to replicate. Each individual model has holes and attempting to roll them into one model doesn't work.


Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2017
What I tried to say was that DM should not be mentioned in every single article


Huh? Why not? If it were mentioned in the proportion to which you claim it exists throughout the Universe, then it should be mentioned in 80-95% of every picture & article posted here. I mean like why do you think I bring it up in 80-95% of every post I make here........ just keeping up with the spirit of Cosmic Fairies & their favorite Dust.

If you'd stop imagining it as Fairy Dust and think of it as UNSEEN matter we don't have the observational resolution to observe, yet, would be a start...
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2017
I hope the "claims" seem less confusing if that is even possible. But they are not my claims, these are the things peer review has accepted that it is possible for DM to do all at the same time....but not in one model....which is my point. Put the "disk" of DM from the theory Randall is trying to revive into the same model as the Halo without changing the gravitational influence each one of these DM structures is supposed to have....and watch what the stars do.
Weird, it happened again except it duplicated the last link twice instead of this one:
https://www.quant...-theory/
Sorry for spreading these out so much....
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2017
Inter-galactic filament
http://www.space....ers.html]https://www.nasa....k-matter[/url]


BS,
Only the first of those 3 links worked...

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2017
And for Benni;
"In 1932, the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort tallied the stars in the Milky Way and found that they came up short. Judging by the way the stars bob up and down like horses on a carousel as they go around the plane of the galaxy, Oort calculated that there ought to be twice as much matter gravitationally propelling them as he could see. He postulated the presence of hidden "dark matter" to make up the difference and surmised that it must be concentrated in a disk to explain the stars' motions."
So... quit picking on Zwicky.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2017
Inter-galactic filament
http://www.space....ers.html]https://www.nasa....k-matter[/url]

BS,
Only the first of those 3 links worked...


Thanks Whyd, my last post has the article regarding the DM disk....
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2017
I hope the "claims" seem less confusing if that is even possible. But they are not my claims, these are the things peer review has accepted that it is possible for DM to do all at the same time....but not in one model....which is my point. Put the "disk" of DM from the theory Randall is trying to revive into the same model as the Halo without changing the gravitational influence each one of these DM structures is supposed to have....and watch what the stars do.

One's pretty much all from outside, the other is pretty much from INSIDE. Of course they would be different. The trick would be to match gravitational influence of BOTH (in varying ratios) to observation. Might still be wrong in reality, but the model would work...:-)
What seems to be missing is a coherent understanding of gravitational curvature.
Weird, it happened again except it duplicated the last link twice instead of this one:

it's something to do with the way the "edit" and "quote" function are working.
cortezz
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2017

Huh? Why not? If it were mentioned in the proportion to which you claim it exists throughout the Universe, then it should be mentioned in 80-95% of every picture & article posted here. I mean like why do you think I bring it up in 80-95% of every post I make here........ just keeping up with the spirit of Cosmic Fairies & their favorite Dust.

Where have I claimed this?
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2017
The trick would be to match gravitational influence of BOTH (in varying ratios) to observation.

Which is precisely the problem I am attempting to expose here, the particle itself can only be modeled to behave one way. That "one way" will not allow it to exist as a disk through the plane of the galaxy as well as maintain itself in a diffuse exterior halo. If Cortezz really is a scientist he knows this is true. Throw the two in one model and either the Halo destabilizes the disk or the disk destabilizes the Halo....and the stars play pinball around the galaxy....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2017
@RNP - I had actually linked 4 different articles that for some reason were removed from my post when I edited one thing. Let me try again with the rest:


@bshott......... keep this stuff up & you will be charged guilty for confusing RNP with the facts. He claims he knows how to create maps for 80-95% of something that is missing, the Universe. Didn't you see that pretty drawing over on that other thread? Yeah, RNP knows how to map stuff that can't be OBSERVED.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2017
The trick would be to match gravitational influence of BOTH (in varying ratios) to observation.

Which is precisely the problem I am attempting to expose here, the particle itself can only be modeled to behave one way. That "one way" will not allow it to exist as a disk through the plane of the galaxy as well as maintain itself in a diffuse exterior halo. If Cortezz really is a scientist he knows this is true. Throw the two in one model and either the Halo destabilizes the disk or the disk destabilizes the Halo....and the stars play pinball around the galaxy....

Unless they are in relational balance.... My guess - 2 (Halo) to 1 (disk) or some (phi dependent) harmonic...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2017

Huh? Why not? If it were mentioned in the proportion to which you claim it exists throughout the Universe, then it should be mentioned in 80-95% of every picture & article posted here. I mean like why do you think I bring it up in 80-95% of every post I make here........ just keeping up with the spirit of Cosmic Fairies & their favorite Dust.

Where have I claimed this?

Cortezz,
You should ignore Benni's missives... He has "only child syndrome"...
Not to mention, problems discerning scale differentials on a relational basis...
ask him how many Femtometres between nucleon radii in a carbon molecule. By his narrative, he doesn't believe there is any..
Shouldn't a "Nuclear Engineer" know this stuff?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2017
ignore Benni's missives
...what's that?

has "only child syndrome".
......definition

scale differentials on a relational basis
....definition

ask him how many Femtometres between nucleon radii in a carbon molecule
....why would anybody care? If you think anybody should care, why don't you suggest they ask you for the answer indtead of me?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2017
has "only child syndrome".
......definition

I'll answer this first. Quite explanatory.
Never had to work for attention. Spoiled.
... missives
...what's that?

Just proved my point.
scale differentials on a relational basis
....definition

C'mon, Benni the highly schooled "Nuclear physicist"...
Work with me a LITTLE bit, here...
ask him how ... in a carbon molecule
If you think anybody should care, why don't you suggest they ask you for the answer in(s)tead of me?

There. Fixed that for you.
Cuz it show's you can't visualize space. Too much work.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2017
Cuz it show's you can't visualize space. Too much work.


And WhyGuy, you can't solve Differential Equations........too much work. So why should anyone care about the contorted shapes & mangled definitions you create with your phantom blowtorch.
bschott
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2017
My guess - 2 (Halo) to 1 (disk) or some (phi dependent) harmonic...

My guess is that there isn't any dark matter at all in the universe....so far that is a guess that is being proven accurate.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2017
Cuz it show's you can't visualize space. Too much work.


And WhyGuy, you can't solve Differential Equations........too much work.

Not a matter of "can't". More a matter of never took the time to train myself (Adult ADHD)
Neither can you - more or less for the same reason, I suspect...
So why should anyone care about the contorted shapes & mangled definitions you create with your phantom blowtorch.

They don't have to "care" - It's just fun...:-)
and it ain't phantom - burned myself plenty o' times with it...
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2017
My guess is that there isn't any dark matter at all in the universe....so far that is a guess that is being proven accurate.

It's all in how you view "dark matter". I see it as alot of hydrogen atoms (for the most part) spaced pretty far apart, not absorbing photons of the proper energy level, thereby initiating a photon emission. And the farther away from a gravitational collection point, the farther apart they are. therefore, even LESS photon emissions.
Ergo. Not "turned on" - dark.
It's really all about the scale of your reference frame.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2017
My guess is that there isn't any dark matter at all in the universe....so far that is a guess that is being proven accurate.
@bschott
this is also called Russel's Teapot argument, or you can call it God of the Gaps as well - both apply

what science does, and what most people here arguing about the topics, is attempt to narrow the focus, make pro- and con- arguments from evidence, determine the validity by matching observation & evidence to theory (or hypothesis) and then experiment to validate or remove

DM is no different
it's not like there are no competing theories because there are... and this is where every anti-DM enthusiast gets confused

just because someone writes a paper or article on or against DM doesn't mean everyone is advocating for the latest [insert claim here]

it is simply the scientific method at work

that is really all it is

ranting about it makes the ranter look...?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2017
It's all in how you view "dark matter". I see it as alot of hydrogen atoms (for the most part) spaced pretty far apart,


To the contrary, I nominate Stumpo as the most likely candidate for DM, there's a lot of "far apart" space there.
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2017
it is simply the scientific method at work

The scientific method allows for a particle to be modeled according to what is required of it, peer reviewed and published. This is why DM proponents accept each paper regardless of the incongruities between the modeled behavior.
science does..... is attempt to narrow the focus

This "multi model" approach does not narrow the focus...it has the opposite effect. It presents all theories as viable if shown to be possible mathematically...even when in reality all are not. So what is gained or learned when only one model can be right but all pass peer review?
DM is no different
it's not like there are no competing theories because there are... and this is where every anti-DM enthusiast gets confused

Apparently it creates confusion all around in that the enthusiasts will defend every model when, as you said above...they actually compete with each other. Science is supposed to be learning, not competing.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2017
The galaxy has regions of peculiar twisting

It's only "peculiar" to the plasma ignoramuses, i.e. astrophysicists. There is absolutely nothing peculiar to twisting filaments in plasmas, it is completely expected.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2017
This is why DM proponents accept each paper regardless of the incongruities between the modeled behavior
@bschott
and again - this is no different than the aether modelling of days prior
learn what you can and find a way to validate or eliminate the "model"
So what is gained or learned when only one model can be right but all pass peer review?
you are making an assumption that there is only one model and no one is working on any other models
this is obviously not the case as there are still MOND models being tested
"multi model" approach does not narrow the focus
actually, it does -it worked for the Higgs, and it is still working for DM and Gravity
we have eliminated a few models that we know can't be viable, as you can see from historical studies regarding the lack of visible mass in our galaxy (use Google Scholar and see the history for yourself)

...to be continued
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2017
@bschott cont'd
Science is supposed to be learning, not competing
that is where you are very wrong - start here (@ about the 3 min mark): https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

then listen to this short one: https://www.youtu...aao1NU_Y

the competition is where the learning actually comes from
this is how science advanced from Newtonian gravity to GR/SR

this is why when people like cantdrive post things like "It's only "peculiar" to the plasma ignoramuses" while not actually being able to show any science where his cult predicts something it makes no sense to anyone but the cult members in said belief system

if you look at it, there is absolutely no evidence in any post cantdrive has made above, yet he truly believes what he said
therefore, he is posting religion, not science

science, however, requires evidence and validation (the latter is important for a scientific truth)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2017

It's only "peculiar" to the plasma ignoramuses, i.e. astrophysicists.
@nazi sympathizing pseudoscience cult member

repeating a lie doesn't somehow make it true
you were proven wrong here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

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

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

and you still can't actually produce evidence for your claim, let alone produce a predictive model that is superior to or even equivalent to modern mainstream plasma physics

epic fail

again
(or still)

bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2017
you are making an assumption that there is only one model and no one is working on any other models
this is obviously not the case as there are still MOND models being tested

Stump, why would you say I assume there is only one model when the quote of mine you were responding to has the words "all pass peer review" in reference to models, and again later you quoted from my post
"multi model" approach does not narrow the focus

You say I assume something and then acknowledge by quoting what I said that I clearly do not assume what you say I do.
learn what you can and find a way to validate or eliminate the "model"

This is pretty much what I said here:
It This "multi model" approach does not narrow the focus...presents all theories as viable if shown to be possible mathematically...even when in reality all are not.

In order to narrow the focus, models must be eliminated...right?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2017
Stump, why would you say I assume
@bschott
sorry - worded that poorly. my mistake. it just didn't make sense to me

there are a lot of things that "can" pass peer review because they're correct, and the best example of that is Newtonian gravity vrs GR/SR
that doesn't mean it (newtonian) is absolute, nor the best answer, considering, but it is still functional and correct

the same regarding DM - there isn't some validated scientific truth at this point as it is still under investigation, so the argument isn't about how can it be peer reveiwed and published or factual, it is simply a matter of being correct under the circumstances, but not fully or comprehensively definitive (again, much like Newtonian gravity)

does that make it more clear?
In order to narrow the focus, models must be eliminated...right?
yep
or new ones made (like string) to try to find answers to narrow the focus
etc

the same for the models
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2017
@bschott cont'd
In order to narrow the focus, models must be eliminated...right?
the problem is that you're attempting to argue an absolute while we admittedly don't have all the information

no model has made any argument that says "this is it, and that is final" because every time we think we got that point we find another clue that something else is going on
(again, much like Newtonian gravity vrs GR/SR)

so we have multiple models, and some are correct in situation 1, while some are correct in situation 2, and the only way to find out why that is, is to attempt to explain why 1 and 2 aren't complementary, so we reach out with explanation b or another model, and start the whole thing up from scratch again

the scientific method narrowing the focus to generate facts and truths
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2017
science, however, requires evidence and validation

We agree 100% here.
"multi model" approach does not narrow the focus
actually, it does -it worked for the Higgs, and it is still working for DM and Gravity

How has the Higgs been validated in the real world? How has DM been validated in the real world? Gravity is observed (what it does to objects) but not understood ( the operational mechanism for it's effect)
that is where you are very wrong

You are entitled to your opinion...I am allowed to disagree.
there is absolutely no evidence in any post cantdrive has made above, yet he truly believes what he said
therefore, he is posting religion, not science

Again we agree, fundamental physics observations are completely at odds with EU theory. But then again , fundamental physics observations are at odds with a lot of accepted mainstream theories as well....like above with the DM disc model vs. the Halo model.
Regardless...the truth isn't far away.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2017
@bschott last
about this last part - to make it more clear
.presents all theories as viable if shown to be possible mathematically...even when in reality all are not
lets assume were talking about directions for a minute
you have the longitude, but not the latitude of a location
how will you find where you are, then determine where you need to go?

this is the same thing that the models are doing: the first thing to do is throw something at the wall and see if it sticks

example: for latitude, you can use, say, a sextant
this will give you a latitude, but does it really narrow down where you are if you don't know where you are? how good is that information when you can't actually see the globe, or know that there is an ocean between you and your destination? or the LAT of the destination?

hence the multiple models seeing what sticks so that we can work from the "corners", per se, to get the eventual puzzle picture sorted
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2017

the problem is that you're attempting to argue an absolute while we admittedly don't have all the information

All I am trying to stress is that DM as a particle will have finite properties. Therefore modeling it to have properties which it MUST have as part of theory to explain how it forms a disk and remains in one, and then modeling it with properties it must have in order to form a halo and remain in one, will not ever allow the particles properties to be accurately determined...
no model has made any argument that says "this is it, and that is final"

When I argue against aspects of the standard model...I am told by it's proponents "this is it...it's not final but it's close"....

the scientific method narrowing the focus to generate facts and truths

Then the scientific method should have already incorporated the disk model into the halo model as suggested above to see if both can work together....despite no way to tell which one is wrong.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2017
How has the Higgs been validated in the real world?
@bschott
CERN
How has DM been validated in the real world?
https://en.wikipe...evidence

Gravity is observed (what it does to objects) but not understood ( the operational mechanism for it's effect)
and?
do you know the intricate details of every tool you work with?
there is still a lot we don't know about metallurgy and metalworking/forming, yet we do a darn great job working metals into tools and more... so it isn't always about making something definitive if you have a working basic theory to guide you to further knowledge
You are entitled to your opinion...I am allowed to disagree
i don't think we disagree as much as you think, though
i just happen to think you are not cognizant of certain important details in certain cases - and this is proven by other posts (magnetic cancer machine-etc)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2017
@bschott cont'd
Therefore modeling it to have properties which it MUST have as part of theory to explain how it forms a disk and remains in one, and then modeling it with properties it must have in order to form a halo and remain in one, will not ever allow the particles properties to be accurately determined
if you don't know where to look for, say, a tree, you can find it by blindly running at full speed into the forest, but it is far better to attempt to find it by establishing some parameters for safety, right?
same thing: by establishing properties you can then extrapolate what it must have (like gravity)
then we can work out problems (why we can't see it)
and pursue methods to find it ( https://en.wikipe...articles )

this is similar to how the neutrino was found, BTW...
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2017
When I argue against aspects of the standard model...I am told by it's proponents "this is it...it's not final but it's close"....
@bschott
perhaps
but then again, it's part of the standard model because there is more evidence supporting the "aspects" than most peripheral arguments

and that is important to note
and we're talking levels of evidence at that point, so again, much like your prior arguments in medicine, which are similar to this, it is about what evidence trumps what other evidence

if the peripheral aspect is the better one, eventually it will have the better supporting evidence, but until that time it is not anything but a peripheral argument

some may disagree with me on that, but i also have a perspective based upon *using* evidence, and what qualifies as better or worse evidence
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2017
i had to address this last
Then the scientific method should have already incorporated the disk model into the halo model as suggested above to see if both can work together....despite no way to tell which one is wrong
how do you know it isn't already being worked on?
how many grad students are writing thesis or working on problems just like this every day?

there is a great deal of science that, like modern technology being developed in commercial companies, simply isn't talked about for one reason or another

call it fear of being usurped or whatever, you can't say that x isn't being worked on when most studies in progress even now aren't always publicized as being worked on at all

bschott
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2017
there is a great deal of science that, like modern technology being developed in commercial companies, simply isn't talked about for one reason or another

Indeed!!!
(magnetic cancer machine-etc)

This is the reaction it garners when you talk about/work on something that isn't widely published.
call it fear of being usurped or whatever, you can't say that x isn't being worked on when most studies in progress even now aren't always publicized as being worked on at all

Thanks for the chat Stump, it was a good one. I do see forward progress being made in a lot of fields....hopefully we get to a level of understanding that resolves the unresolved in our lifetimes so we can both enjoy the truth of what it is instead of arguing over what may be.

Cheers
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2017
The scientific method allows for a particle to be modeled according to what is required of it,

In theory
peer reviewed and published.

Practice
This is why DM proponents accept each paper regardless of the incongruities between the modeled behavior.

They accept, because it is required by scientific method. Call it the "probabilistic method"...
This "multi model" approach does not narrow the focus...it has the opposite effect. It presents all theories as viable if shown to be possible mathematically...even when in reality all are not. So what is gained or learned when only one model can be right but all pass peer review?

It insures probabilistic integrity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2017
It insures probabilistic integrity.
The main thing is to make sure that their papers make hypotheses that are compatible with all the facts. We simply don't have enough facts to differentiate between MOND and particle DM yet. Though the balance of evidence leans toward particle DM at this time, which is why the ΛCDM model is currently preferred by most cosmologists.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2017
And BTW, the reason they didn't talk about DM is because there are no obvious gravity anomalies represented by the image, other than the warping which is accounted for by another nearby galaxy.

DM is therefore not particularly topical. It's a new image, made with one of the most powerful telescopes on Earth. That's its interest. Sounds like somebody's got a DM obsession, just sayin'.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2017
It insures probabilistic integrity.
The main thing is to make sure that their papers make hypotheses that are compatible with all the facts. ...

A slow and laborious practice...:-)
I like to sum it up with - "Everything is relative - including relativity..."
Translated, that means- everything is on a sliding scale, including the sliding scale...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.