Dwarf galaxies don't fit the standard Dark Matter model

The study, led by Marcel Pawlowski at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, critiques three recent papers by different international teams, all of which concluded that the satellite galaxies support the standard model. The critique by Merritt and his colleagues found serious issues with all three studies.

The team of 14 scientists from six different countries replicated the earlier analyses using the same data and cosmological simulations and came up with much lower probabilities — roughly one-tenth of a percent — that such structures would be seen in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.

Dwarf galaxies don’t fit standard model | Astronomy.com
http://www.astronomy.com/news/videos...standard-model

It's been shown before that dwarf galaxies fit the modified gravity
theories much better. But that just got swept under the rug, as an
inconvenient truth. Now it's been shown that dwarf galaxies don't even
fit the Dark Matter model in their relation to giant galaxies. So why
are we still so hell bent on trying to find Dark Matter?

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38:36 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
....
It's been shown before that dwarf galaxies fit
the modified gravity theories much better.

That is not part of the article, and they do not help explain the formation of these dwarf galaxies, the thrust of this article.

But that just got swept under the rug, as an
inconvenient truth.

Except it isn't a truth, it is a theory.

Now it's been shown that dwarf galaxies don't
even fit the Dark Matter model in their relation
to giant galaxies.

Right. Isn't Science wonderful?

So why are we still so hell bent on trying to
find Dark Matter?

Beats me. We have found more and more normal matter where Dark Matter was supposed to be, and WIMPs fail to be detected at every turn. So if it turns out that Dark Matter is really there and really normal matter, then modified gravity theories only work to explain dwarf galaxies "today" and do not describe their formation.

So why do some people want to keep harping on modified gravity theories, when we have serious "calibration" issues to be addressed, upon which both Dark Matter and modified gravity theories rest?

David A. Smith

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38:36 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
The study, led by Marcel Pawlowski at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, critiques three recent papers by different international teams, all of which concluded that the satellite galaxies support the standard model. The critique by Merritt and his colleagues found serious issues with all three studies.



The team of 14 scientists from six different countries replicated the earlier analyses using the same data and cosmological simulations and came up with much lower probabilities � roughly one-tenth of a percent � that such structures would be seen in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.



Dwarf galaxies don�t fit standard model | Astronomy.com

http://www.astronomy.com/news/videos...standard-model



It's been shown before that dwarf galaxies fit the modified gravity

theories much better. But that just got swept under the rug, as an

inconvenient truth. Now it's been shown that dwarf galaxies don't even

fit the Dark Matter model in their relation to giant galaxies. So why

are we still so hell bent on trying to find Dark Matter?



Yousuf Khan

Dark matter and molecular mass as aether displacements helps to understand our ongoing ebb and flow of our universe.

What's still not binding with anything is helium.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38:36 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
The study, led by Marcel Pawlowski at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, critiques three recent papers by different international teams, all of which concluded that the satellite galaxies support the standard model. The critique by Merritt and his colleagues found serious issues with all three studies.



The team of 14 scientists from six different countries replicated the earlier analyses using the same data and cosmological simulations and came up with much lower probabilities � roughly one-tenth of a percent � that such structures would be seen in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.



Dwarf galaxies don�t fit standard model | Astronomy.com

http://www.astronomy.com/news/videos...standard-model



It's been shown before that dwarf galaxies fit the modified gravity

theories much better. But that just got swept under the rug, as an

inconvenient truth. Now it's been shown that dwarf galaxies don't even

fit the Dark Matter model in their relation to giant galaxies. So why

are we still so hell bent on trying to find Dark Matter?

Yousuf Khan

I'd have to accept that galactic interactions most likely extracted star clusters from the otherwise much bigger and well established galaxies.

Because our universe is not uniformly expanding is why so many galaxies have merged and/or having ripped themselves apart upon encountering one another.

On 19/06/2014 9:47 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38:36 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: ...
It's been shown before that dwarf galaxies fit the modified gravity
theories much better.

That is not part of the article, and they do not help explain the
formation of these dwarf galaxies, the thrust of this article.

No, it wasn't mentioned in this article, but that's probably because
that's usually taken as red cape, which gets the blood of
astrophysicists on two sides boiling and beating on each other. So they
may have deliberately avoided mentioning the alternative theory which is
the elephant in the room. When the alternative theory is mentioned, it's
guaranteed that one half of astrophysicists will automatically tune out.
So they let their audience come to their own conclusions.

So why are we still so hell bent on trying to find Dark Matter?

Beats me. We have found more and more normal matter where Dark
Matter was supposed to be, and WIMPs fail to be detected at every
turn. So if it turns out that Dark Matter is really there and really
normal matter, then modified gravity theories only work to explain
dwarf galaxies "today" and do not describe their formation.

So why do some people want to keep harping on modified gravity
theories, when we have serious "calibration" issues to be addressed,
upon which both Dark Matter and modified gravity theories rest?

What calibration issues? We can't measure the distance to galaxies in
the most direct accurate way, i.e. through parallax. So what calibration
do you mean?

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:34:48 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 19/06/2014 9:47 AM, dlzc wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38:36 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: ...
....
So why are we still so hell bent on trying to
find Dark Matter?

Beats me. We have found more and more normal
matter where Dark Matter was supposed to be, and
WIMPs fail to be detected at every turn. So if
it turns out that Dark Matter is really there and
really normal matter, then modified gravity
theories only work to explain dwarf galaxies
"today" and do not describe their formation.

So why do some people want to keep harping on
modified gravity theories, when we have serious
"calibration" issues to be addressed, upon which
both Dark Matter and modified gravity theories
rest?

What calibration issues? [...] what calibration
do you mean?

How do astronomers infer how much normal mass a galaxy has? They pick a region, the center, and note the rotation speed at "edge" of that region. This given them an amount of normal mass in that region. Then they note the luminosity of that region (at what frequencies?). Then they have a brainless factor, "amount of normal mass" / luminosity, they can apply on average across the rest of that galaxy to infer the amount of normal mass there.

So any mass that does not glow with an identical spectrum to the naked (as in little in the way of photospheres, no planets, little dust, no stellar sheaths) stars at the center, is "Dark". So as you get into dust laden regions, regions with planets and stellar sheaths, regions where we cannot image stars without them lighting dust "intensely", they don't get counted 100% as "normal" matter. And *that* is where Dark Matter comes from, essentially all of it. Mistakes we still make after many decades of finding out how many mistakes are built into those assumptions.

So why is there little Dark Matter in dwarf galaxies? Because they "look roughly the same" across their visible width.

Pretty deep thinking, right? Dark Matter is not a sturdy leg on which to strain at building theories. It is *begging* to be enlightened...

David A. Smith