Opss....have i lost the dark matter ?

The dark matter was hipothised by Zwickly (?) in 1930 because the galaxies rotated 3-4 times speedder than the gravitational visible mass ' permission ;
later they observed the same anomalies in the rotation of galaxies ' clusters .
The stars ' distance is measured with the parallax , which , for definition , can have only positive values also if very very little ; the more probable reason , that a star has a negative parallax , is that an intermediate not visible body deviates the ligth by its mass .
We propose to you the consulting of 3 stars ' catalogues of our galaxy , in CDS Strasbourg : I/239/ hip main , V/109 Sky 2000 4 and I/239/tyc main .

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:50:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The dark matter was hipothised by Zwickly (?) in 1930 because the galaxies rotated 3-4 times speedder than the gravitational visible mass ' permission ;

snip

And , if in our galaxy , there is no dark matter , probabely in the other galaxies there is no dark matter and the clusters ' galaxies can move like we observe without dark hipothesis ...or not ?

Are you saying that the stars in the galactic arms are not rotating 3-4
times faster than they should?

If that is so how do you explain the arms in the first place? If the
stars were travelling at the speed they should be according to Newton
wouldn't the galaxy just be a disc of stars with no arms any longer in
existence?

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-6, Rodney Pont wrote:

Are you saying that the stars in the galactic arms are not rotating 3-4
times faster than they should?

Perhaps he is, since he seems to be saying the error bars on the parallaxes are
enough that the Universe could be enough bigger or smaller than we think it is
to eliminate the need for dark matter.

Although it sounds like he is talking about small stars we don't see yet that
somehow we've underestimated.

John Savard

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:47:31 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-6, Rodney Pont wrote:

Are you saying that the stars in the galactic arms are not rotating 3-4
times faster than they should?

Perhaps he is, since he seems to be saying the error bars on the parallaxes are
enough that the Universe could be enough bigger or smaller than we think it is
to eliminate the need for dark matter.

Although it sounds like he is talking about small stars we don't see yet that
somehow we've underestimated.

John Savard

I think that the "dark matter" proponents are trying to come up with the equivalent of the Aether of yore. They can't figure out how things work with the math they have, so they either use a large fudge factor or conjure up an invisible Aether. Maybe religionists have it right, there is a very large fat whiskered man up there, making things spin faster.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 7:08:58 AM UTC+1, Uncarollo2 wrote:


I think that the "dark matter" proponents are trying to come up with the equivalent of the Aether of yore. They can't figure out how things work with the math they have, so they either use a large fudge factor or conjure up an invisible Aether. Maybe religionists have it right, there is a very large fat whiskered man up there, making things spin faster.

Rolando here is clinging on to a vocabulary that belongs to a different time - the empiricists in the early 20th century couldn't make sense of Newton's absolute/relative terms and so conjured up their own interpretations at variance with Newton's own contrived scheme, even when he tells his readers what he is hinting at -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions" Newton

Isaac's idea is that observed motions of the planets are relative motions while their actual motions as seen from the Sun are true or absolute motions hence his butchering of the main heliocentric insight which accounts for retrogrades and their actual resolutions using the motions of the Earth and an implied central Sun -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

He then takes that notion and hijacks the periodic times argument to make observed motions equivalent with actual motions -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun" Newton

By the time the early 20th century came along, the notion of apparent motions as opposed to the actual motions of the planets in a way the original astronomers had appreciated them was lost, even Newton's contrived scheme followed such and empiricists started to think of space as a separate entity in terms of 'aether'.

"In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least
formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether'';" Einstein

You poor souls live inside a narrative contained within another narrative like those Russian dolls and quite content to remain with that meaningless junk inherited from other eras.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:08:54 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:47:31 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-6, Rodney Pont wrote:

Are you saying that the stars in the galactic arms are not rotating 3-4
times faster than they should?

Perhaps he is, since he seems to be saying the error bars on the parallaxes are
enough that the Universe could be enough bigger or smaller than we think it is
to eliminate the need for dark matter.

Although it sounds like he is talking about small stars we don't see yet that
somehow we've underestimated.

John Savard

I think that the "dark matter" proponents are trying to come
up with the equivalent of the Aether of yore. They can't figure
out how things work with the math they have, so they either
use a large fudge factor or conjure up an invisible Aether.

Agreed.

Maybe religionists have it right, there is
a very large fat whiskered man up there,
making things spin faster.

Good one. Perhaps there's properties about gravity that we don't
about? Perhaps like nuclear forces, there's a strong gravity and a
weak gravity? This hypothesis makes more sense than some sort of
matter that can't be seen or felt and doesn't show up on any
instruments but affects the entire universe.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 2:08:58 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:47:31 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-6, Rodney Pont wrote:

Are you saying that the stars in the galactic arms are not rotating 3-4
times faster than they should?

Perhaps he is, since he seems to be saying the error bars on the parallaxes are
enough that the Universe could be enough bigger or smaller than we think it is
to eliminate the need for dark matter.

Although it sounds like he is talking about small stars we don't see yet that
somehow we've underestimated.

John Savard

I think that the "dark matter" proponents are trying to come up with the equivalent of the Aether of yore. They can't figure out how things work with the math they have, so they either use a large fudge factor or conjure up an invisible Aether.

That's called science. Science makes several postulates which then develop and expand to explain the known and predict the unknown. If the predictions are incorrect either the model is adjusted or abandoned.

Aether was a very sensible model, and still is to some extent. After all, how can space be empty if it has properties? Dark matter is also a sensible model given our present knowledge.

The models are objective, not subjective. To oppose a model just because "it doesn't seem right to me" without analytical reason or an alternative replacement is the path of ignorance.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 7:38:14 AM UTC-5, Helpful person wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 2:08:58 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:47:31 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-6, Rodney Pont wrote:

Are you saying that the stars in the galactic arms are not rotating 3-4
times faster than they should?

Perhaps he is, since he seems to be saying the error bars on the parallaxes are
enough that the Universe could be enough bigger or smaller than we think it is
to eliminate the need for dark matter.

Although it sounds like he is talking about small stars we don't see yet that
somehow we've underestimated.

John Savard

I think that the "dark matter" proponents are trying to come up with the equivalent of the Aether of yore. They can't figure out how things work with the math they have, so they either use a large fudge factor or conjure up an invisible Aether.

That's called science. Science makes several postulates which then develop and expand to explain the known and predict the unknown. If the predictions are incorrect either the model is adjusted or abandoned.

Aether was a very sensible model, and still is to some extent. After all, how can space be empty if it has properties? Dark matter is also a sensible model given our present knowledge.

The models are objective, not subjective. To oppose a model just because "it doesn't seem right to me" without analytical reason or an alternative replacement is the path of ignorance.

http://www.richardfisher.com

I believe that the concept of Dark Matter is a blind alley and will impede progress. However, it's fun to watch.

I recently spent a week at Cerro Tololo with two astronomers who are doing Super Nova research. One of them is credited with finding over 400 SNs using automated software and 1/2 meter size scopes that I helped him set up over the last few years. What he told me was kind of surprising. Most of the top astronomers in the world would rather do one night on a 6 meter instrument so they could study some very faint object at the edge of creation, so as to perhaps share in some Nobel Prize winning discovery, than do the long slog of gathering reams of data every night with a smaller dedicated instrument that would help to further the knowledge of these same objects at a closer distance.

One of the astronomers, the guy who has discovered and studied numerous Super Novae, said that we really still don't understand them fully at this time. Yet we are using them as yardsticks to measure the universe.