Questions on the enigmatic rotational curve of spiral galaxies

On Feb 25, 2:57*pm, john190209 wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:37 am, Sam Wormley wrote:





john190209 wrote:

Observe this spinning disc precessing at 2 and rotating at 1:
every time the disc precesses 180 degrees it sweeps out
a spherical volume and the next pass through this same
volume it is spinning the *opposite direction*.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF

THIS is why successive layers of SPHERICALLY-PLACED halo stars
have opposite rotational motion!!!!!

*john
*Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

* *Dang Sefton--now YOU broke my bull**** meter!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But it's funny how things like layered
oppositely-spinning spherical halos and jets spewing
lots of energetic particles and *galactic discs
that spin all-of-a-piece just seem to
fall naturally out of my story- hey?

john- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: The outer halo stars were formed first (content, spectral
analysis). Their origination as singular and randomly far-placed
objects precludes the galactic star-birth mechanism. They have
haphazardly built an inner energy nest and succumb to it.

The outer halo stars are of a different genesis scale to the interior
just as quasars are of a different genesis scale and may be the halo
progenitors of this universe.

"" wrote in message
news:Klfpl.531877$TT4.300890@attbi_s22...
john190209 wrote:


Observe this spinning disc precessing at 2 and rotating at 1:
every time the disc precesses 180 degrees it sweeps out
a spherical volume and the next pass through this same
volume it is spinning the *opposite direction*.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF

THIS is why successive layers of SPHERICALLY-PLACED halo stars
have opposite rotational motion!!!!!

john
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

Sam Wormley:
Dang Sefton--now YOU broke my bull**** meter!

RKS:
Dark Energy;
Dark Matter;
Inflation theory (all);
SuperSymmetry (all);
etc

You mean your bull**** meter lasted through that lot only to fall on his
rant?
One evidence free theory is enough for physics. So which attacks of
imaginatice should be culled first?

As the current Big Bang model (Lambda CDM) relies on unproved Dark Matter
and Dark Energy theories, Grand Unifying Theories which rely on unproved
SuperSymmetry theory,I say we cull that one first.

And this is what physics has become:
1) Current theory doesn't work so:
2) Make up something that fits the gap eg Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark
Energy, SuperSymmetry;
3) Hide the fact that you made up the theory by relating it to current
theory mathematically;
4) Make the mathematical model predict the universe that we already know is
present ie actually predict nothing at all;
5) Pretend that the initial contrivance was a discovery.

Had we started off with a chicken little theory instead of the Big Bang then
'Sky Falling' theory would have been proved and all researchers would be in
agreement - eg the falling sky can be measured as cosmic rays.

You see we can always make unrelated data fit whatever crazy models we dream
up. Even though half the CMBR measured in shadow effect observations was
generated locally we persist in insisting that it all came from a period
shortly after the Big Bang.

And the fact that time is slowed by cosmic redshift (Redshift of light from
distant objects) we ignore this when calculating the age the of the universe
as I demonstrated in a previous message.

And the response from the 'experts'? If I don't agree with current models
it is because I haven't read enough papers, even though the question I have
been asking are probably not in any papers. But if I go off on a wild goose
chase then at least I stop poking holes in current models by asking
questions (something that is fast becoming a forbidden heresy).

Robert

On Feb 25, 4:15*pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

[...]

As the current Big Bang model (Lambda CDM) relies on unproved Dark Matter
and Dark Energy theories, Grand Unifying Theories which rely on unproved
SuperSymmetry theory,I say we cull that one first.

What's the stuff in the bullet cluster? MACS J0025.4-1222? Hmm?

The anti-DM crowd just haaaatttesss to discuss such inconvinient
things.


And this is what physics has become:
1) Current theory doesn't work so:

Except it does.

2) Make up something that fits the gap eg Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark
Energy, SuperSymmetry;

Supersymmetry isn't even thought to be real - try again with the
buzzword generator.

It must bug you that physics has essentially made **** up and it has
worked out well.

3) Hide the fact that you made up the theory by relating it to current
theory mathematically;

Every theory is made up.

4) Make the mathematical model predict the universe that we already know is
present ie actually predict nothing at all;

Except when it predicts new things, eg - noninteracting matter that
was discovered through lensing in the bullet cluster. Ooops.

[snip rest of repeated and pointless arguments]

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 4:15 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

[...]

As the current Big Bang model (Lambda CDM) relies on unproved Dark Matter
and Dark Energy theories, Grand Unifying Theories which rely on unproved
SuperSymmetry theory,I say we cull that one first.

What's the stuff in the bullet cluster? MACS J0025.4-1222? Hmm?

The anti-DM crowd just haaaatttesss to discuss such inconvinient
things.

RKS:
It doesn't mean it is Dark Matter, it just means that you have one galaxy
that fits the Dark Matter hypothesis.


And this is what physics has become:
1) Current theory doesn't work so:

Except it does.

2) Make up something that fits the gap eg Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark
Energy, SuperSymmetry;

Supersymmetry isn't even thought to be real - try again with the
buzzword generator.

It must bug you that physics has essentially made **** up and it has
worked out well.

RKS:
Not one of the many proposed experiments suggested by string theorists
(Supersymmetry theory) that have been carried out have had positive results.
Or have you conveniently forgotten about the detectors down mine shafts and
other misadventures?

Physics works well. But Cosmology has become a joke.

Let's list a few predictions that have recently failed:
The ripples in the CMBR were less than 1/10,000 the magnitude of any
generally accepted model;
the expansion of the universe is not slowing;
the expected shadow effect in the CMBR was only found in half the galaxies
observed;
the most distant objects ever observed turned out to be old galaxies when
they were expected to be young (as the universe was young);

3) Hide the fact that you made up the theory by relating it to current
theory mathematically;

Every theory is made up.

RKS:
No, hypotheses are postulated based on extrapolations of current theory
and/or observation. There are no such observations for string theory - it
is contrived from whole cloth, like a science fiction novel only less
plausible.

Dark Matter and Dark energy are treated like theory although they are only
somewhat speculative hypotheses.

There is no evidence of inflation - it was contrived from whole cloth.

4) Make the mathematical model predict the universe that we already know
is
present ie actually predict nothing at all;

Except when it predicts new things, eg - noninteracting matter that
was discovered through lensing in the bullet cluster. Ooops.

RKS:
Not everyone agrees:
But now the whole dark matter theory - together with aspects of Newton's and
Einstein's theories too - are being questioned by two Canadian researchers
in a paper soon to be published by Britain's prestigious Royal Astronomical
Society.

The challenge has come from graduate student, Joel Brownstein and his
supervisor, Professor John Moffat of the University of Waterloo's Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physics.

The two have based their new theory on observations of the so-called "Bullet
Cluster" of galaxies - 3 billion light years from Earth and renowned among
astronomers as being the site of the "most energetic event known in the
universe since the Big Bang".

In fact the Bullet Cluster in the southern constellation of Carina is where
two huge clusters of galaxies have actually collided.

Last year NASA scientists used the same Bullet Cluster and the photos taken
of it to put forward "direct proof" that dark matter exists.

Now the Canadians have analysed the same images and come to a totally
different conclusion.

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.ph...nt&ta sk=view

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146

But what of Dark Energy? That appears to be pure wishful thinking.

And what next - Dark Time???

Robert

On Feb 25, 5:59*pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

...
On Feb 25, 4:15 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

[...]

As the current Big Bang model (Lambda CDM) relies on unproved Dark Matter
and Dark Energy theories, Grand Unifying Theories which rely on unproved
SuperSymmetry theory,I say we cull that one first.

What's the stuff in the bullet cluster? MACS J0025.4-1222? Hmm?

The anti-DM crowd just haaaatttesss to discuss such inconvinient
things.

RKS:
It doesn't mean it is Dark Matter, it just means that you have one galaxy
that fits the Dark Matter hypothesis.

Two, right off the top of my head. Three if you count the more
complicated example of Abell 520.

Just a coincidence, right? So what's the stuff we call dark matter?

[...]

Tilt at the string theory windmill with someone else.


Let's list a few predictions that have recently failed:
The ripples in the CMBR were less than 1/10,000 the magnitude of any
generally accepted model;

....which is why inflation was invoked to explain this, and explain why
parts of the CMBR which correspond to parts of the universe that have
never been casually connected just happen to share the same features.

the expansion of the universe is not slowing;

In fact, it is speeding up. Reading is fundamental.

the expected shadow effect in the CMBR was only found in half the galaxies
observed;

....in first year WMAP data under the assumption of isothermal
galaxies. The analysis has yet to be repeated and you have yet to
explain why the falsification of the obviously-wrong isothermal galaxy
model is a disproof of the big bang theory.

the most distant objects ever observed turned out to be old galaxies when
they were expected to be young (as the universe was young);

So?

[snip string theory whine]

Dark Matter and Dark energy are treated like theory although they are only
somewhat speculative hypotheses.

Except they both have specific mathematical models with abundances of
theoretical and observational motivation.


There is no evidence of inflation - it was contrived from whole cloth.

There's an entire group of astrophysicists who would love to hear the
much more physically plausible explanation that's consistent with
observation.

I personally cannot wait to see the paper you wrote on the subject -
do you have a reference handy? Or is this armchair guessing like so
many others?




4) Make the mathematical model predict the universe that we already know
is
present ie actually predict nothing at all;

Except when it predicts new things, eg - noninteracting matter that
was discovered through lensing in the bullet cluster. Ooops.

RKS:
Not everyone agrees:

Not everyone agrees that the Earth is round. That's not sufficient.

But now the whole dark matter theory - together with aspects of Newton's and
Einstein's theories too - are being questioned by two Canadian researchers
in a paper soon to be published by Britain's prestigious Royal Astronomical
Society.

Ah, MNRAS. Could be worth something.


The challenge has come from graduate student, Joel Brownstein and his
supervisor, Professor John Moffat of the University of Waterloo's Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Brownstein and Moffat? Ohh, if only I could guess!

These two have a specific axe to grind as TeVeS is their baby. Always
view claims like this with suspicion. I can count the number of
independing confirmations of their claims with no fingers on my hand.


The two have based their new theory on observations of the so-called "Bullet
Cluster" of galaxies - 3 billion light years from Earth and renowned among
astronomers as being the site of the "most energetic event known in the
universe since the Big Bang".

I find this to be a curious claim because the average supernova is
more energetic than the bullet cluster. Chalk this up to baaaaaad
writing.


In fact the Bullet Cluster in the southern constellation of Carina is where
two huge clusters of galaxies have actually collided.

WHAM!

Chuck Liddel ain't got nothing on that!


Last year NASA scientists used the same Bullet Cluster and the photos taken
of it to put forward "direct proof" that dark matter exists.

Where "last year" is actually 2006.


Now the Canadians have analysed the same images and come to a totally
different conclusion.

Hand it to dead cat and you get a third.


http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.ph...5&option=com_c...

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146

I'll never understand why folks who so badly want to be rid of dark
(energy|matter) are so quick to hop onto another theory that does the
same thing but WORSE. The invocation of a handful of arbitrary field
can predict just about anything you want.

I am amused at the inclusion of a Yukawa based description of
gravitation in the derivation...well derivation is the wrong way to
put it as the equation was just dropped in. Anyway, Yukawa based
potentials have been rather tightly constrained in planetary motion
and by lunar ranging. Not much [any] attention has been dedicated to
that, but I expect an explanation by arbitrarily saying 'it doesn't
have an effect at solar-system scales'.

Read the last two pages of the paper. It isn't that convincing.


But what of Dark Energy? *That appears to be pure wishful thinking.

And what next - Dark Time???

Robert

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message ...
On Feb 25, 5:59 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

...
On Feb 25, 4:15 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

[...]

As the current Big Bang model (Lambda CDM) relies on unproved Dark Matter
and Dark Energy theories, Grand Unifying Theories which rely on unproved
SuperSymmetry theory,I say we cull that one first.

What's the stuff in the bullet cluster? MACS J0025.4-1222? Hmm?

The anti-DM crowd just haaaatttesss to discuss such inconvinient
things.

RKS:
It doesn't mean it is Dark Matter, it just means that you have one galaxy
that fits the Dark Matter hypothesis.

Two, right off the top of my head. Three if you count the more
complicated example of Abell 520.

Just a coincidence, right? So what's the stuff we call dark matter?

RKS:
It is the abundant dark matter beyond the known dark stuff that is enigmatic. We have always known about burnt out stars, gas and dust that floats about the place and does not emit any light.

It may be the one hypothesis that turns out to be really interesting, but arrayed with all the other guesses...

One of the problems with the dark matter hypothesis is that with all that dark matter about the visible universe has more than enough mass to form a Schwarzschild black hole.

If we array a set of so called coordinate clocks across a Schwarzschild black hole then we note that clocks ever closer to the centre appear to run ever slower.

If one was near the centre then one notices that clocks ever further away appear to run ever quicker.

This means that light coming from an ever greater distance to a central observer sees light ever more BLUE shifted.

Now this is obviously the opposite to what we observe.

However, if the universe were infinite then from any point in that universe one must be at the event horizon of a Schwarzschild radius as there is more than enough mass in any direction to form a Schwarzschild black hole.

Now when we array our clocks as before we note that clocks run slower the further away from the observer they are placed and light coming from ever greater distance is ever more redshifted.

This is precisely what we actually observe.

The one aspect of this simple, but consistent with all observational data, model is that spacetime curvature is relative ie spacetime curvature on the very large scale depends on where the observer is. Oddly enough, General Relativists don't like relativity of space-time curvature. But look what they have to make up to work around it - Big Bangs, inflation, Dark Energy etc. Occam should razor that lot for sure.


Let's list a few predictions that have recently failed:
The ripples in the CMBR were less than 1/10,000 the magnitude of any
generally accepted model;

....which is why inflation was invoked to explain this, and explain why
parts of the CMBR which correspond to parts of the universe that have
never been casually connected just happen to share the same features.

RKS:
Inflation had been around for more than ten years, but cosmologists rightly treated it like the joke it is. It is only when there was nothing left in the theory closet that it was incorporated into any models, ending with the current Lambda CDM (CDM=Cold Dark Matter)

the expansion of the universe is not slowing;

In fact, it is speeding up. Reading is fundamental.

RKS:
I'm aware of one of the major discoveries of the 1990s. It is the accelerating expansion that led to Dark Energy hypothesis. Note that no-one thought that the current model might be wrong. Oh no, perish the thought. We just have to make up some new force or stuff or phenomena that we must have missed.

If religionists had been that persistent we would still be holding to 'Biblical Truths' ~ maybe 'Dark Time' could have solved the disparity between the biblical creation and observation of the universe? Maybe God uses Dark Energy to his work?

At least science bothers to check their contrivances.

the expected shadow effect in the CMBR was only found in half the galaxies
observed;

....in first year WMAP data under the assumption of isothermal
galaxies. The analysis has yet to be repeated and you have yet to
explain why the falsification of the obviously-wrong isothermal galaxy
model is a disproof of the big bang theory.

RKS:
Firstly, there is no 'Big Bang theory'. There have been a set of hypotheses purporting to model the evolution of the universe. One of the most notable was Gamow's model which predicted a fossil infra red and microwave radiation. Gamow himself predicted that the radiation would be around 20K. The CMBR was discovered, but at much lower temperature. The infra red guess proved to be wrong.

Gamow's model failed, as did the subsequent models. The model we currently have is the Lambda CDM which hails from the mid 90s ie is a bit over ten years old.

The Lambda CDM also predicts that Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is emitted at some period after the Big Bang, which is the name that Fred Hoyle gave Gamow's model.

If the CMBR was emitted at that time then it must have travelled across the universe to reach detectors on/near Earth. If there are galaxies in the way then there should be a shadow effect.

In 2007 it was discovered that there was no shadow effect for half the galaxies surveyed, indicating that the CMBR detected must have been emitted somewhere between the observer here on Earth and that galaxy.

In fact there are galaxies all over the place. In a reverse of the infamous Olber's paradox, the CMBR should be riddled with shadows, most of which are missing...

the most distant objects ever observed turned out to be old galaxies when
they were expected to be young (as the universe was young);

So?

RKS:
That would have been enough to sink any model that opposed the Big Bang, had they postulated it. But the BB theory we have "So?".

You make a prediction, all the observations contradict it.

OK. The Bullet cluster appears to show evidence of dark matter. So?

When it is played back to you, it doesn't look so clever, does it...

Dark Matter and Dark energy are treated like theory although they are only
somewhat speculative hypotheses.

Except they both have specific mathematical models with abundances of
theoretical and observational motivation.

RKS:
Let's not lower the standard for cosmology hypotheses. If there is enough there to take them seriously then pursue them, by all means. But let's not consider them a done deal just yet. I note that there are far more scientists prepared to accept Dark Matter than Dark Energy.

I note that you are no fan of string theory. If so, then how do you account for the fact that inflation relies on the GUT which in turn relies on string theory?

Well, Guth's version did. I'm not sure what the Lambda CDM has cooked up on the GUT front.

And doesn't the whole big bang/inflation model depend on the unification of the four forces...gravity not playing ball???


There is no evidence of inflation - it was contrived from whole cloth.

There's an entire group of astrophysicists who would love to hear the
much more physically plausible explanation that's consistent with
observation.

I personally cannot wait to see the paper you wrote on the subject -
do you have a reference handy? Or is this armchair guessing like so
many others?

RKS:
I was asking questions...I seem to have diverged a little.

Anyway, as you have refused to answer what you claim are simple questions (in another thread) and are even now asking questions yourself, it seems only fair that I make up a model as well.

I'll go with the infinite universe and the relative space curvature model.

As for galaxy rotation - I asked a few questions. For instance, I read about the enigmatic rotational motion of spiral galaxies. I assume that globular clusters are not mysterious in this regard? Is the ring galaxy's rotational motion also mysterious or is it just spirals and I assume barred galaxies as well?


4) Make the mathematical model predict the universe that we already know
is
present ie actually predict nothing at all;

Except when it predicts new things, eg - noninteracting matter that
was discovered through lensing in the bullet cluster. Ooops.

RKS:
Not everyone agrees:

Not everyone agrees that the Earth is round. That's not sufficient.

RKS:
The earth isn't round - it's ellipsoid.
But apparently my observation is not sufficient for you...??


Last year NASA scientists used the same Bullet Cluster and the photos taken
of it to put forward "direct proof" that dark matter exists.

Where "last year" is actually 2006.

RKS:
The article date is 2007...you were saying about 'reading'??


I'll never understand why folks who so badly want to be rid of dark
(energy|matter) are so quick to hop onto another theory that does the
same thing but WORSE. The invocation of a handful of arbitrary field
can predict just about anything you want.

I am amused at the inclusion of a Yukawa based description of
gravitation in the derivation...well derivation is the wrong way to
put it as the equation was just dropped in. Anyway, Yukawa based
potentials have been rather tightly constrained in planetary motion
and by lunar ranging. Not much [any] attention has been dedicated to
that, but I expect an explanation by arbitrarily saying 'it doesn't
have an effect at solar-system scales'.

Read the last two pages of the paper. It isn't that convincing.

RKS:
I was pointing out that not everyone agreed. Yes, when there is nothing but two flaky theories to choose from...

Let's hope they establish or dismiss the dark matter question expediently so we can move on to more interesting questions, like why the visible universe isn't a Schwarzschild black hole...not enough mass without the dark stuff

Oh, and I have a bunny in the hole for Dark Matter ~ it is what happens to black holes...we can't have 'Periods' (as in analogous to the punctuation mark) spotted around an infinite universe, there must be some kind of 'life cycle'. Tiny little singularities from a cold explosion - invisible dust that radiates through a galaxy and accumulates in the halo where it eventually decays into ordinary matter.

Robert

On Feb 26, 2:06*am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

[snip]

In fact there are galaxies all over the place. *In a reverse of the infamous Olber's paradox, the CMBR should be riddled with shadows, most of which are missing...

It is no obvious you are a contrarian crank like many others here. I
actually read the ****ing papers you cited, and pointed out what I
considered flaws and you ignored them.

[snip rest, unread]

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 2:06 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

[snip]

In fact there are galaxies all over the place. In a reverse of the
infamous Olber's paradox, the CMBR should be riddled with shadows, most of
which are missing...

It is no obvious you are a contrarian crank like many others here. I
actually read the ****ing papers you cited, and pointed out what I
considered flaws and you ignored them.

[snip rest, unread]

RKS:
You said:
"...in first year WMAP data under the assumption of isothermal
galaxies. The analysis has yet to be repeated and you have yet to
explain why the falsification of the obviously-wrong isothermal galaxy
model is a disproof of the big bang theory."

That is criticism that needs to be resolved one way or the other, but
neither you or I can do it. There needs to be follow-up study of the data
to resolve the issue. In the meantime, you interpret the data as showing
nothing, I don't. For instance, were all the galaxies that did cast a
shadow of a demonstrably different type to those that didn't? I don't know,
do you?

I don't see how that amounts to being a crank.

Robert