My solution to the conundrum of spiral galaxy rotation is that gravity increases towards the rotational plane of the spiral galaxy. The further the stars are from the central bulge, the closer they are to the plane of angular momentum of the galaxy. This seems to fit well with the general description of a spiral galaxy seen edge-on. Why hasn't anyone thought of this simple idea before? It even overcomes the problems associated with the second paragraph of the quote below:

Tinkering with gravity
There are two obvious explanations for the large discrepancy between the directly observable luminous masses of galaxies and clusters and the masses implied by their rotation and internal motions: either these systems contain very large amounts of unseen dark matter, or the Newtonian law of gravity breaks down on the scales of these objects. Whereas the former idea is the widely favoured paradigm of our time, as early as the 1960s some theoreticians began to suggest that instead of invoking a load of dark matter to provide the required extra gravitational influence, perhaps the flat rotation curves of galaxies could be explained by changing the law of gravity. One of the first suggestions was that at large distances, or beyond a certain particular distance, the strength of gravity might decrease more slowly than the Newtonian inverse square law implies, in which case the orbital speeds of distant bodies (such as stars and gas clouds in the outer regions of galaxies) would no longer decline in the same sort of way as the orbital speeds of the planets decrease with increasing distance from the sun.
One major problem about relating any change in the law of gravity purely to distance is that the bigger the galaxy, the more its rotational motion would deviate from Newtonian law, and the larger its apparent mass discrepancy would become. This does not match well with the observations - there are plenty of examples of small galaxies with large amounts of 'missing mass' and, on the other hand, examples of large galaxies, where the shortfall in mass is small. (The Dark Side Of The Universe, Iain Nicholson 2007)

Generally speaking, none of the attempts to modify gravity work very well. I don't know how many varieties there are, but a popular one I know of is called "Modified Newtonian Gravity". It explains the galactic rotation curves pretty nicely, but not too many of the other dark matter phenomena. In particular, modified gravity models have a hard time explaining the Bullet cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster) and similar phenomena, in which dark matter appears to have seperated from the ordinary baryonic matter, while particle dark matter scenarios can usually handle it easily.
However I have no idea if something like your particular idea is out there already since I don't really know the details of any modified gravity theories.

Hello all
The shape of the object (IE not spherical) that is producing the gravity is what needs to be incorporated into a more general gravity theory. You have changes in static electric theory to incorporate different shapes (sphere, infinite line, and infinite plane) and their resultant force equations (1/r^2, 1/r, 1) so why not gravitational theory.

:)

Gravitation theory does do that, in a very similar way to classical electrostatic theory. Newtonian gravity and electrostatics are described by essentially exactly the same equations:

F = k{qQ\over r^2}
F = G{mM\over r^2}

True these are just for point masses and charges, but if you do the work you'll see that the other scenarios you describe work exactly the same way too.
It's just that most astrophysical bodies are very spherical so you really only see the 1/r^2 result. If you had an infinite line of mass it would have a 1/r force associated with it. Of course I am only talking Newtonian gravity here, but it would be similar in GR, just harder to calculate.

In fact the similarity goes a lot further than that, full classical electromagnetism and low-energy GR are both described by essentially the same equations as well. GR goes a bit different at higher energies because it is non-linear, but still, they are very similar. This is part of where Kaluza-Klein theories came from; if you change the spacetime of GR to be 5-dimensional and demand that it still obeys Einsteins equations, then electromagnetism arises as a natural part of the theory.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this simple idea before? Because people who've tried working on MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) realise there's more to solving a problem in physics than just giving arm waving explainations. If gravity increases as you get further away from the central bulge, how does it increase? How does it increase without implying the solar system should be different? Changing one part of the behaviour of a galaxy without changing any other part is quite difficult.

Because people who've tried working on MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) realise there's more to solving a problem in physics than just giving arm waving explainations. If gravity increases as you get further away from the central bulge, how does it increase? How does it increase without implying the solar system should be different? Changing one part of the behaviour of a galaxy without changing any other part is quite difficult.Did you not read my post? I'm saying gravity is stronger towards the rotational plane. Stars are closer to this the further away from the central bulge. This fits, agreed (just thinking abstractly for now)?

Did you not read my post? I'm saying gravity is stronger towards the rotational plane. Stars are closer to this the further away from the central bulge. This fits, agreed (just thinking abstractly for now)?Again the silence...

Wait, so if I reply to a thread I'm trolling and if I don't I'm afraid to admit I'm wrong? What a nice catch 22 from you. :rolleyes:

And you're obviously wrong because your implying that the further from the galaxy's sphere-like central bulge the closer stars are to the plane orthogonal to the axis of rotation. Except that there's stars in the plane of rotation near the bulge too. If you take a slice of the galaxy along that rotation plane you'll have stars all the way into the central region of the galaxy, not just some distance out, and their rotation curves will still need to be explained.

It's easy to see that stars will be in and around the galactic plane everywhere because if simple stellar mechanics. The centre of mass of a disk of material is at the centre of the disk. If a star is orbiting this disk then it'll actually be orbiting the centre of mass and so if the star beginning above the disk it'll be drawn downwards because there's a component of the gravitational force pulling it in the direction parallel to the axis of rotation of the disk. After some time it'll pass down through the plane of rotation, at which point it'll then be attracted back upwards. It'll continue this motion, moving up and down through the disk's plane of rotation in an oscillatory fashion. It's not possible for the star to start outside the disk and then it's orbital plane be parallel to the disk, it would imply there's no gravitational attraction between the disk and the star.

Again, this is something anyone whose done a bit of stellar mechanics should know. Infact you don't even need to know any of the equations, you just need to realise that a star would orbit a galaxy's centre of mass and if the star starts outside the galactic plane then it'll pass through it somewhere in it's orbit because its orbital plane is not parallel to the galactic plane.

You claim to have a degree in astronomy but this is yet another example of you seemingly having no clue about even the most simplistic of astronomical dynamical systems. Might I suggest that rather than try to be a smug patronising tool by saying "The silence is deafening" you spend that time more constructively, like reading a book on the topic you are talking about. Maybe then you'll stop believing you've got solutions to problems you don't even grasp. :rolleyes:

Wait, so if I reply to a thread I'm trolling and if I don't I'm afraid to admit I'm wrong? What a nice catch 22 from you. :rolleyes:

And you're obviously wrong because your implying that the further from the galaxy's sphere-like central bulge the closer stars are to the plane orthogonal to the axis of rotation. Except that there's stars in the plane of rotation near the bulge too. If you take a slice of the galaxy along that rotation plane you'll have stars all the way into the central region of the galaxy, not just some distance out, and their rotation curves will still need to be explained.

It's easy to see that stars will be in and around the galactic plane everywhere because if simple stellar mechanics. The centre of mass of a disk of material is at the centre of the disk. If a star is orbiting this disk then it'll actually be orbiting the centre of mass and so if the star beginning above the disk it'll be drawn downwards because there's a component of the gravitational force pulling it in the direction parallel to the axis of rotation of the disk. After some time it'll pass down through the plane of rotation, at which point it'll then be attracted back upwards. It'll continue this motion, moving up and down through the disk's plane of rotation in an oscillatory fashion. It's not possible for the star to start outside the disk and then it's orbital plane be parallel to the disk, it would imply there's no gravitational attraction between the disk and the star.

Again, this is something anyone whose done a bit of stellar mechanics should know. Infact you don't even need to know any of the equations, you just need to realise that a star would orbit a galaxy's centre of mass and if the star starts outside the galactic plane then it'll pass through it somewhere in it's orbit because its orbital plane is not parallel to the galactic plane.

You claim to have a degree in astronomy but this is yet another example of you seemingly having no clue about even the most simplistic of astronomical dynamical systems. Might I suggest that rather than try to be a smug patronising tool by saying "The silence is deafening" you spend that time more constructively, like reading a book on the topic you are talking about. Maybe then you'll stop believing you've got solutions to problems you don't even grasp. :rolleyes:I haven't mentioned about any 'trolling'; that's what I do when I trail a line of hooks from my sea kayak to catch mackeral incidentally. That was QW. Yet another example of how we don't comprehend one another. I've given up reading your 'explanatory' posts from now on. Carry on replying if you wish, but I'm not interested enough to think about them.

So the fact my post clearly explains how the claim of your central to the entire point of this thread is wrong isn't of interest to you?

In other words, you aren't interested in doing anything actually valid, you just want to talk acronyms with quantum_wave.

So the fact my post clearly explains how the claim of your central to the entire point of this thread is wrong isn't of interest to you?

In other words, you aren't interested in doing anything actually valid, you just want to talk acronyms with quantum_wave.You don't talk for the mainstream science community. What you're saying is just one person's opinion. I've read through Iain Nicholson's book 'Dark Side Of The Universe' 2007 and my ideas fit perfectly with the latest thinking and discoveries. For example, Nicholson concludes that the actual existence of dark matter haloes looks increasingly less likely when one studies the facts (Chapter 6: 'Does Dark Matter Exist at All?) (i) no detected density 'cusps' at the centers (ii) small satellite galaxies not seen but expected by computer simulation (iii) hierarchical galaxy formation scenario predicts that the smallest should have formed first and the largest, most massive, galaxies and clusters last - not seen (iv) random motions of stars in the outer parts of some (but by no means all) elliptical galaxies appear to decline with increasing distance from their centers in a way which suggests that they contain little, if any, dark matter at all. THESE ARE THE FACTS!

He has no answer..

He has no answer..I'm wondering if you're trying to troll or you're honestly so far up your own backside you can see out your mouth. This is the second time you'd done this in one thread and I'll say the same again, that you need to get over yourself. I get PMs from quantum_wave saying how I'm a jackass for replying to your threads, then I get a PM from him saying how I'm 'fanatical' and now that I'm not replying to your threads you whine that I have no answer.

Now either you want me to reply, in which case STFU about it when you don't like what I say or you STFU with you "He's got no answer". You have said nothing which requires a retort because you say nothing of value. You haven't answered any questions I've put to you. You claim to have an astronomy degree yet basic celestial mechanics, as I've explained in this thread, are beyond you.

Rather than making BS posts and whining "Oh look, he's got no answer" why don't you learn some science. Stop reading your pop science books and watching TV documentaries and pick up a textbook.

You don't talk for the mainstream science community. What you're saying is just one person's opinionMy explaination of how stars orbiting a galactic core would oscillate above and below the galactic plane isn't a matter of opinion, it's an unavoidable result of the behaviour of gravity. There's no 'it's my opinion', I'm telling you what Newton and Einstein say would happen, though if you aren't lying about an astronomy degree you should already know what I have had to explain to you.

I've read through Iain Nicholson's book 'Dark Side Of The Universe' 2007Oh wow, then you're much more in touch with the physics community than me. I only spend my days in a physics department of a university talking with professors and doing research, you reading a pop science book puts you miles ahead of me. :rolleyes:

nd my ideas fit perfectly with the latest thinking and discoveries. Except you have no work. You've got a total of about half an A4 page of waffling. No descriptions, no models, no justification, no methodology, no derivation, no results, no predictions, no quantitative framework, no logic, just BS you make up as and when you need it. Anyone can do that, it's literally childs play.

For example, Nicholson concludes that the actual existence of dark matter haloes looks increasingly less likely when one studies the facts (Chapter 6: 'Does Dark Matter Exist at All?)Oh well if someone is publishing their work in a pop science book, rather than submitting it for peer review in a journal, where they can do a detailed analysis which are avoided in pop science books because layman don't want to read journal articles, then he's bound to be right then, isn't he? Whenever someone avoids journals and peer review and published a pop science book instead it's an immediate redflag that their work wouldn't pass peer review and they just want money. Like I said to you before, why are you reading pop science books and not journals or textbooks? If you've got an astronomy degree then surely you're able to handle things a little more advanced than something you can buy in Walmart.

(ii) small satellite galaxies not seen but expected by computer simulation Other than the 14 (at least) around our galaxy alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies See, if you were reading papers and not pop science books you'd be able to check up on the claims made in the paper by using the references. Pop science books have no such requirement and clearly you don't put in any effort to check what you read, which is a terriblely bad habit to have if you have any intention of doing any science.

THESE ARE THE FACTS! Says who? A pop science book author and you? It took me 7 seconds to find a list of dwarf galaxies in our local area, I remembered that the two Magellanic clouds are examples of such galaxies so I knew you were not correct. It's funny how you and q_w have had a go at Prom and myself for being defenders of the mainstream, for clinging too much to what other scientists say, yet you are accepting anything you read in a pop science book, which is at best written by the people you complain Prom and I listen to and at worst written by a crank hack who haven't ever done any science. Books do not need to be fact checked, like journal papers do, so they are less trustworthy than journals. And to top it off you're claiming to have an astronomy degree and yet you haven't ever heard of dwarf galaxies? Bloody hell, even people who only watch TV documentaries have usually heard there's two little partners (ie the Magellanic clouds) near the Milky Way.

You whine Prom and I state things like the fate of the universe as according to general relativity as fact, saying we should open our minds a bit and yet you swallow anything and everything you read in unreviewed, layperson-orientated books you bought in a shop, even when they should be setting off alarm bells in your head by conflicting with what you should have learnt during your astronomy degree.

Shake it off CSS. AN is the low life of the forum and not worth the sweat off your backside.

Damn. I will have to post more.

I didn't think you would resent not having that status.

I didn't think you would resent not having that status.

It's not so much the label as the one who labels.

Meaning what exactly?

Shake it off CSS. AN is the low life of the forum and not worth the sweat off your backside.If I'm the low life why did you PM me in a very obvious attempt to wind me up? If you and CSS don't want me posting, why make posts which are a deliberate attempt to get a response from me?

CSS still hasn't responded to my explanation of how orbits will oscillate above and below the galactic plane. Do you think my explaination of why he's wrong is itself incorrect or do you agree with my explaination of why he's wrong? Or do you think it doesn't matter because nothing I say is worth reading, in your opinion?

You and CSS whine about Prom and myself, how we back one another up (the 'peanut group' or whatever you called us) yet you're swallow one anothers BS without a second thought. And, as I commented, CSS accepts stuff he reads in a pop science book blindly, yet when we show support for work in a textbook we're being narrow minded. Excellent hypocrisy. And the fact you've PM'd me in a clear attempt to wind me up shows how pathetic you are. You aren't aggravating, your pathetic attempts to delude yourself are humorous. Of course normally I wouldn't find pathetic things funny but then its no skin off my nose if you both continue wasting effort on coming up with acronyms for your waffle.

I bet in 12 months time you'll be exactly where you are now. Just like you were 12 months ago q_w. Funny how you've gotten nowhere and done nothing in a year. 2 years even. Perhaps close to 3 years. Well, funny to me.

If I'm the low life why did you PM me in a very obvious attempt to wind me up? If you and CSS don't want me posting, why make posts which are a deliberate attempt to get a response from me?

CSS still hasn't responded to my explanation of how orbits will oscillate above and below the galactic plane. Do you think my explaination of why he's wrong is itself incorrect or do you agree with my explaination of why he's wrong? Or do you think it doesn't matter because nothing I say is worth reading, in your opinion?

You and CSS whine about Prom and myself, how we back one another up (the 'peanut group' or whatever you called us) yet you're swallow one anothers BS without a second thought. And, as I commented, CSS accepts stuff he reads in a pop science book blindly, yet when we show support for work in a textbook we're being narrow minded. Excellent hypocrisy. And the fact you've PM'd me in a clear attempt to wind me up shows how pathetic you are. You aren't aggravating, your pathetic attempts to delude yourself are humorous. Of course normally I wouldn't find pathetic things funny but then its no skin off my nose if you both continue wasting effort on coming up with acronyms for your waffle.

I bet in 12 months time you'll be exactly where you are now. Just like you were 12 months ago q_w. Funny how you've gotten nowhere and done nothing in a year. 2 years even. Perhaps close to 3 years. Well, funny to me.You know what, that post smells. I doubt if anyone could stand to read it. And about personal hygiene; try to keep your mouth shut while you post and wash your hands before you type.

Shake it off CSS. AN is the low life of the forum and not worth the sweat off your backside.AN et al don't bother me at all. Reading up on these last posts just made me chuckle.

AN'al; Iain Nicolson is a highly respected expert with a distinguished career. The title of 'pop-science writer' is merely 'an extra string in his bow'. It takes someone of his calibre to be able to relate these difficult concepts to a lay audience. This is the sign of someone who knows their subject inside-out (unlike yourself).

The basic principle of gravity increasing at the rotational plane (GIRP) still applies whether the stars are oscillating above and below it. Your basic denial to even consider the notion means that you shouldn't be in the pseudoscience forum.

You know what, that post smells. I doubt if anyone could stand to read it. And about personal hygiene; try to keep your mouth shut while you post and wash your hands before you type.I see you don't want to admit to deliberately trolling so instead you just avoid answering. I'm wondering if you're naive enough to think somehow you're 'putting me in my place' by avoiding anything and everything said to you. Do you really think denial is the best way to proceed?

The basic principle of gravity increasing at the rotational plane (GIRP) still applies whether the stars are oscillating above and below it. Your basic denial to even consider the notion means that you shouldn't be in the pseudoscience forum.I've explained why your qualitative concept is flawed. Of course if you can provide me with a quantitative model so that I can see for myself you've got a coherent logical concept you're working with that'd be much better. But something tells me you haven't got anything like that, you're too busy coming up with acronyms in the hopes they'll fool someone into thinking you're not a fraud.

I see you don't want to admit to deliberately trolling so instead you just avoid answering. I'm wondering if you're naive enough to think somehow you're 'putting me in my place' by avoiding anything and everything said to you. Do you really think denial is the best way to proceed?
You make obviously untrue statements as if they were true. You are very deluded and you have anger management issues. Probably they stem from your arrogance and from the fact that you cannot deal with anyone who points out your ignorance about the depth of knowledge of people that you besmirch. Arrogance is not a virtue and you wear it like you were proud. Lowest character on the forum belongs to AN. Anyone disagree? I would have sent this by PM so we wouldn’t have to air it but you even lie about what is said in PM which are supposed to be private under any circumstances. Did I say low character?
Originally Posted by quantum_wave
The basic principle of gravity increasing at the rotational plane (GIRP) still applies whether the stars are oscillating above and below it. Your basic denial to even consider the notion means that you shouldn't be in the pseudoscience forum. ”

I've explained why your qualitative concept is flawed. Of course if you can provide me with a quantitative model so that I can see for myself you've got a coherent logical concept you're working with that'd be much better. But something tells me you haven't got anything like that, you're too busy coming up with acronyms in the hopes they'll fool someone into thinking you're not a fraud.I never said that, yet again you have attributed something to me by actually changing what the quote function produces and then inserting my name. Last time I caught you doing this you said it was accidental. What is your excuse this time? Fixation.

You make obviously untrue statements as if they were true. So your PM saying "Fixated" or whatever it was, wasn't an attempt to wind me up? And it wasn't hypocritical either? Sure.

You are very deluded and you have anger management issues.Actually in real life I'm pretty laid back, polite and pleasant. Because the people I associated with have demonstrated they're the kind of people I respect and like. You're neither. I am capable of being polite, I've done so many times on these forums but you and your crank friends have demonstrated that polite corrections of your many mistakes leads to you simply ignoring anything anyone says to you which doesn't pat you on the back. Unless they're a little more blunt.

Probably they stem from your arrogance and from the fact that you cannot deal with anyone who points out your ignorance about the depth of knowledge of people that you besmirch.I besmirch you and CSS. And the besmirching is valid.

but you even lie about what is said in PM which are supposed to be private under any circumstances. Did I say low character? I hardly think revealing that you sent a PM deliberately trying to wind me up and get a rise out of me, despite you posting in threads like this you were going to ignore me, is a huge invasion of privacy. It's perfectly valid evidence to illustrate your hypocrisy. I don't deny my arrogance when dealing with people like you because my self confidence in regards is the discussion of physics with you or CSS is perfectly justified. So while you can call me arrogant I'm not a hypocrite. You are. And you ignore how you and CSS massively overinflate the value of your 'contributions' while whining Prom and I take ourselves too seriously. Nice hypocrisy.

I never said that, yet again you have attributed something to me by actually changing what the quote function produces and then inserting my name. Last time I caught you doing this you said it was accidental. What is your excuse this time? Fixation.
Accidental again. It's clear I'm quoting CSS, given I'm quoting the post previous to my own. No one reading the thread would mistake it for something you said. The fact you think I'm so 'fixated' that for some utterly pointless reason I'd change the quote from CSS to you (what on Earth does that accomplish) that you call me 'fixated' says more about you than me. I was forgetful in changing quotes, opps. I am, after all, not perfect. You seem to want me to be fixated. You keep trying to convince me I am, via PM and by repeatedly saying it here. I couldn't give a stuff about you. I post in other threads, I do other things with my time. Unlike you, the limit of my scientific discussions is not this forum. ;)

So your PM saying "Fixated" or whatever it was, wasn't an attempt to wind me up? And it wasn't hypocritical either? Sure.

Actually in real life I'm pretty laid back, polite and pleasant. Because the people I associated with have demonstrated they're the kind of people I respect and like. You're neither. I am capable of being polite, I've done so many times on these forums but you and your crank friends have demonstrated that polite corrections of your many mistakes leads to you simply ignoring anything anyone says to you which doesn't pat you on the back. Unless they're a little more blunt.

I besmirch you and CSS. And the besmirching is valid.

I hardly think revealing that you sent a PM deliberately trying to wind me up and get a rise out of me, despite you posting in threads like this you were going to ignore me, is a huge invasion of privacy. It's perfectly valid evidence to illustrate your hypocrisy. I don't deny my arrogance when dealing with people like you because my self confidence in regards is the discussion of physics with you or CSS is perfectly justified. So while you can call me arrogant I'm not a hypocrite. You are. And you ignore how you and CSS massively overinflate the value of your 'contributions' while whining Prom and I take ourselves too seriously. Nice hypocrisy.

Accidental again. It's clear I'm quoting CSS, given I'm quoting the post previous to my own. No one reading the thread would mistake it for something you said. The fact you think I'm so 'fixated' that for some utterly pointless reason I'd change the quote from CSS to you (what on Earth does that accomplish) that you call me 'fixated' says more about you than me. I was forgetful in changing quotes, opps. I am, after all, not perfect. You seem to want me to be fixated. You keep trying to convince me I am, via PM and by repeatedly saying it here. I couldn't give a stuff about you. I post in other threads, I do other things with my time. Unlike you, the limit of my scientific discussions is not this forum. ;)

You protest too much and deny what is obviously true about yourself.

AlphaNumeric, you do not belong on any type of discussion forum but especially you should be banned from the Pseudoscience forum if you continue your antics here. Your first post in my first thread here was:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82060

Dollars to doughnuts you did no reading of actual quantum mechanical models and if I asked you to derive the fact a quantum field has a zero point energy contribution you'd be unable to.

I bet your study involved reading Wikipedia and making unsupported claims about physics you don't understand.

Same goes for Reiku.

Either of you muppets want to prove me wrong?

This was uncalled for under any rules of decorum.

Your next post was:


“ Originally Posted by Reiku
He has a pickle with me. Not you. So don't worry about it. ”
No, I think you're both full of ****. Just because you've posted in a thread doesn't mean noone else is wrong and talking BS.
You spew unprovoked attacks like this everywhere you go. Why is it tolerated?

You never commented about the content of my thread and went immediately off into some arrogant challenge based on your zero intellect and infinite arrogance. You were obnoxious for no reason and you have been fixated on me in every QWC thread since then.

You have posted hundreds of posts while trolling my threads and not one has ever addressed my content using the quote feature and then shown I was ignorant, uninformed or incorrect. But the continual accusations that those things were true soon become the overall general impression with those who value your education and skills. Why bother to decide for themselves by reading my posts when they see your attitude? But you will say that I have been shown wrong and that I refuse to accept it when that is not the case. Where I have been wrong I have learned from it and have updated my ideas to incorporate the learning.

I’m discussing ideas that are not testable with current technology but they are not inconsistent with known science, observation or data. You have never attempted or at least succeeded to actually show me wrong yourself by quoting something and correcting it. It is your tactic to say I am wrong because you say so. Speculation does not itself warrant the treatment that it is given here, and my speculation is purposefully done with a methodology that distinguishes between reasonable and responsible speculation vs. idle, wild or fanciful speculation. If you don’t condone speculation fine, but at least say what specific speculation you object to and show some reason why you object. Otherwise you are an empty shirt.

Right from the beginning of my posting here at SciForums and notable I started in the Pseudoscience forum, you were slandering me and belittling ideas, claiming I was cramming my theory (and I never claimed it was theory, just ideas for discussion) down people’s throats, and using ad homs. It then turned into trolling because you entered every thread, never quoted what I said as far as content, never showed and never have been able to show where my ideas are not consistent with observations and data, and have acted like a total a**hole toward me without provocation. You shouldn’t be tolerated anywhere in a discussion forum, and especially your obtuse antics have no place in a Pseudoscience forum.

You don’t even deserve to be responded to by those you deride for no reason and with no discernible provocation. But when ignored in the Cosmology forum you whined to no end and even complained to the moderator that I was a crank to ignore the smart people regardless of the fact that you were hijacking and trolling all of my threads. Your low life posts show you have no self respect and are probably severely impaired socially. If you are not under evaluation mentally for delusions of grandeur or severe egoism you should at least be attending anger management sessions. You have no character and no redeeming qualities that could possibly overcome your sewer hole tactics in dealing with people who come to the forum to discuss ideas.

I suppose I should be making my case and going to the top but I can’t imagine that they are unaware of how you attack any hint of speculation that is meant for discussion. Maybe you are even encouraged by the fact that you are never challenged by the people who should care about those things in a forum environment. If speculation and discussion about speculation is not allowed in the hard science forums that is fine, but that rule should be applied to everyone. If we can’t speculate and discuss speculation in the Pseudoscience forum by non-professionals without having our posts trolled and threads derailed by the likes of obnoxious and arrogant low life like you, AlphaNumeric, then let James R or Stryder warn me to leave you alone or tell me there will be repercussions against me. Until then I is my intention to point out your obnoxious arrogance where ever it appears on a thread in Pseudoscience. Maybe that way we can bring your tactics to the attention of people who should care. If bringing attention to myself for attacking you brings repercussions on me then fine.

Until moderators or management warn me otherwise, I will address your obnoxious and arrogant posts as long as you persist in trolling threads in the Pseudoscience forum and attempt to squelch discussion or impose hard science demands when discussion is all that is intended. Maybe you want to whine to the evil administrator.

You protest too much and deny what is obviously true about yourself.I elaborate on my views. I'm sorry if you think an explaination addressing points raised is too close to coherent rational conversation for comfort.

AlphaNumeric, you do not belong on any type of discussion forum but especially you should be banned from the Pseudoscience forum if you continue your antics here. Practice what you preach (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2349785&postcount=7).

This was uncalled for under any rules of decorum.Reiku and I go back a while and given you two were clearly enabling one another in that thread I didn't bother sugar coating what I said.

You never commented about the content of my thread and went immediately off into some arrogant challenge based on your zero intellect and infinite arrogance. You were obnoxious for no reason and you have been fixated on me in every QWC thread since then.
You keep saying 'fixate' but it's clear that isn't the case. Yes, I've replied to a number of threads you've made but because you post a lot of them and you make claims/statements which I disagree with. There's been plenty of posts of yours I haven't replied to. There's been plenty of posts not of yours I've replied to. Get over yourself, I wouldn't fixate on you, you aren't worth it.

and not one has ever addressed my content using the quote feature
Why bother with such blatent lies? Infact, I've previously commented that I'll quote you and reply to you, point by point, but then you'll mass quote (ie all at once) me and ignore the majority of what I've said.

I’m discussing ideas that are not testable with current technology but they are not inconsistent with known science, observation or data.
But then so is Guest's 'Invisible Fairy Theory'. It's easy to come up with something which is not inconsistent with known science. Coming up with something which actually describes known science is another thing. For instance :

Idea 1 : The universe contains dark matter, which accounts for the spiral rotation profiles of galaxies and mostly exists as a 'halo' about the galactic core.

Idea 2 : The universe contains dark matter, which accounts for the spiral rotation profiles of galaxies and mostly exists as a 'halo' about the galactic core. The matter is made up of interdimensional fairy dust and smells of strawberries.

Idea 1 is an idea which was suggested to explain observations and from which testable predictions follow. Idea 2 is just as consistent and predictive as Idea 1 but obviously nonsense, the second part of it is just tacked onto the 'valid' bit. That's what you're doing, you take other people's ideas and tag on utterly random (ie what you like the sound of) speculations which add nothing to the original ideas and due to your method of random musing, you have no way of making it into a valid component of science.

String theory isn't testable yet but there's no reason to think that down the line it won't reach the point where it is testable. Your work doesn't have that, it'll forever remain an untestable, undevelopable set of things you like the sound of and ad hoc together into something CSS then invents an acronym for.

Speculation does not itself warrant the treatment that it is given here, and my speculation is purposefully done with a methodology that distinguishes between reasonable and responsible speculation vs. idle, wild or fanciful speculation. If you don’t condone speculation fine, but at least say what specific speculation you object to and show some reason why you object. Otherwise you are an empty shirt.Speculation is fine. Questions like "Is there anything outside our universe?" "What kind of ideas are there for before the big bang?" or "Is time travel possible". All fine. But don't for a second think that simply making up pure fiction off the top of your head and slapping a title like "Quantum wave cosmology" means it's anything other than pure fiction. It's not that you're asking questions and speculating, it's that you furvently believe that you've got some kind of rigorous methodology to what you do, that if we all threw in our 2 cents on random speculation (ie avoiding considering any actual astronomical observations or current and previous cosmology in the mainstream) that you'd end up with anything other than pure fiction.

You're making grandeous claims and then just saying "Oh we'll work out the details later". It doesn't work like that. For instance, the idea of instantaneous transmission of gravity is a nice concept, being very simple (infinite propogation speed means no wave mechanics unlike gravity waves in GR) but no matter how much you tried to come up with the rigor for it, the maths to back it up its doomed to failure because we know gravity doesn't work like that. If you have no starting point, simply making random stuff up, then the chances are you're going to be way off in describing Nature. Its hard enough when you start from a set of phenomena you want to describe!

Do you see the difference between 'speculation' and what you and CSS do? You take your work to be much much more legit or methodical than it actually is.

notable I started in the Pseudoscience forum, you were slandering me and belittling ideasWell I generally tend to belittle ideas I think should be belittled immediately. If you were saying something I didn't agree with, I told you so. And I've repeatedly said to you that I don't belittle speculation, I disagree with how you go about it and how you think anything close to science is actually done.

claiming I was cramming my theory (and I never claimed it was theory, just ideas for discussion) down people’s throats, and using ad homs.I never said 'crammed'. You have been trying to get people to think there's something to your work, that your methodology is sufficiently sound that its worth others getting in on it. I disagreed and said that I would want to point out to anyone naive enough not to see through your nonsense that it is precisely that, nonsense.

t then turned into trolling because you entered every thread, never quoted what I said as far as content, never showed and never have been able to show where my ideas are not consistent with observations and data, and have acted like a total a**hole toward me without provocation.That's a lie. There's several threads you've got in Pseudo which I've not replied to. And given your threads tend to be on much the same topic as one another and you bring up the same issues I've clashed with you before on it's not like I'm going into threads on topics I wouldn't normally. You and CSS are two of the most prolific cranks in this forum and as I'm one of the arrogant "I don't like cranks" persons we cross paths a lot. It isn't 'stalking' or 'fixation', we're both fairly prolific posters. When QuantumQuack was posting a lot, I replied to him a lot. When Reiku was, I replied to him. I tend to clash with the 'crank of the month'. I don't reply to you a lot because I'm fixated on you, I reply to you a lot because you post a lot of stuff I deem cranky and I say so. If your stuff were posted under 10 different names I'd still reply to them. You need to realise I don't give a stuff about you on a personal level. It's the crankness of your posts, not you, that makes me reply.

But when ignored in the Cosmology forum you whined to no end and even complained to the moderator that I was a crank to ignore the smart people regardless of the fact that you were hijacking and trolling all of my threads.You didn't like what Prom, Guest and I had to say (odd how 3 people who do science for a living didn't agree with you, must be a conspiracy!) so you called it trolling. You just couldn't accept bad reviews.

Your low life posts show you have no self respect and are probably severely impaired socially.So you making hyperbolic assumptions about how I interact with people day to day from how I interact with you, someone I don't know and don't care to know, isn't being impolite or an ad hom? Why would I treat people I know day to day, people whom I spend time with because we have similar interests/jobs/views, as I treat a crank on an internet forum? Next week it's my 1 year anniversary with my gf. You previously said to Prom he'd be a miserable failure and likely socially inept, despite you knowing nothing of him personally. I had to point out he's got a wife. The fact you're unable to grasp that because you behave differently to how most people behave I treat you differently says more about your social interactions than mine.

Until then I is my intention to point out your obnoxious arrogance where ever it appears on a thread in PseudoscienceSpiffy.

II wouldn't fixate on you, you aren't worth it.

Your actions make that a lie. If it isn't fixation it is obnoxious arrogance, you choose.

And you're obviously wrong because your implying that the further from the galaxy's sphere-like central bulge the closer stars are to the plane orthogonal to the axis of rotation.At any time of a snap-shot of the profile of spiral galaxy, the stars towards the outer edge will tend to be closer to the plane of rotation. What's wrong with that statement of fact?


Except that there's stars in the plane of rotation near the bulge too. If you take a slice of the galaxy along that rotation plane you'll have stars all the way into the central region of the galaxy, not just some distance out, and their rotation curves will still need to be explained.So? There's no need to consider the central bulge for the moment. Let's stick to the outer spiral arms for now.

It's easy to see that stars will be in and around the galactic plane everywhere because if simple stellar mechanics. The centre of mass of a disk of material is at the centre of the disk. If a star is orbiting this disk then it'll actually be orbiting the centre of mass and so if the star beginning above the disk it'll be drawn downwards because there's a component of the gravitational force pulling it in the direction parallel to the axis of rotation of the disk. After some time it'll pass down through the plane of rotation, at which point it'll then be attracted back upwards. It'll continue this motion, moving up and down through the disk's plane of rotation in an oscillatory fashion.So what? That's obvious stuff.

It's not possible for the star to start outside the disk and then it's orbital plane be parallel to the disk, it would imply there's no gravitational attraction between the disk and the star.I don't get what you mean. You're presupposing something I'm not suggesting I think.[/QUOTE]

Again, this is something anyone whose done a bit of stellar mechanics should know. Infact you don't even need to know any of the equations, you just need to realise that a star would orbit a galaxy's centre of mass and if the star starts outside the galactic plane then it'll pass through it somewhere in it's orbit because its orbital plane is not parallel to the galactic plane.
You need to try and understand my arguments a little bit more deeply than this. Give me some credit.

Other than the 14 (at least) around our galaxy alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies See, if you were reading papers and not pop science books you'd be able to check up on the claims made in the paper by using the references. Pop science books have no such requirement and clearly you don't put in any effort to check what you read, which is a terriblely bad habit to have if you have any intention of doing any science.You arrogant twerp. You don't think that Nicolson isn't aware of the local satellite galaxies? To quote:

Secondly, computer simulations of the successive mergers of small-scale haloes to produce galaxies, predict the existence of large amounts of sub-structure in the form of numerous small satellite galaxies around each large galaxy - far more than has yet been observed. Perhaps these large numbers of small satellite systems are actually there, but are simply so faint - or even completely dark - that they have not yet been detected. The recent discovery of galaxies such as VIRGOH121 which appear to consist almost entirely of dark matter, hints that we may be beginning to uncover elements of the predicted population of small scale galaxy companions, but for the moment, there remains a clear mismatch between what hierarchical galaxy formation theory and simulations predict, and what we actually see.

At any time of a snap-shot of the profile of spiral galaxy, the stars towards the outer edge will tend to be closer to the plane of rotation. What's wrong with that statement of fact?The average distance from the galactic plane is zero everywhere in the galaxy. What you mean to say is that the variance decreases as you move further from the galactic core. It's an important difference.

So? There's no need to consider the central bulge for the moment. Let's stick to the outer spiral arms for now.If your statement about the behaviour of gravity isn't valid for the central bulge then it isn't valid. You can't pick and choose which bits of the galaxy behave one way and which bits behave another.

So what? That's obvious stuff.And yet you needed to be told.

Give me some credit. Earn it.

You arrogant twerp. You don't think that Nicolson isn't aware of the local satellite galaxies? To quote:
You said "(ii) small satellite galaxies not seen but expected by computer simulation ". If you are paraphrasing your information source to the point of distorting the facts I can't be blamed for that. And as I pointed out, the problem with a pop science book is that even when qualified statements are made they do not go into details showing precisely how they arrived at that. Does the author provide any references for his claims, as someone like Penrose would? If not then I'm enclined to defer to journal published work, irrespective of who the pop science author is. With the best will in the world facts must be distorted in order to be put into a book which is to be read by a layperson, since by the very nature of the distinction between pop science book and journal some of the details must be obscured. Dark matter models aren't perfect but the way you paraphrased that author was certainly not a valid reflection on the present state of research.

The average distance from the galactic plane is zero everywhere in the galaxy. What you mean to say is that the variance decreases as you move further from the galactic core. It's an important difference.Okay then, so the decreasing variance of stars from the galactic core fits with the idea of gravity increasing towards the rotational plane.

If your statement about the behaviour of gravity isn't valid for the central bulge then it isn't valid. You can't pick and choose which bits of the galaxy behave one way and which bits behave another.You haven't convinced me why the idea doesn't fit with the central bulge. Would you care to explain again?

btw, I'm getting a positive response from another forum (a UK one). Someone actually understands the connection with the ice age mystery and thinks that it's a worthy and interesting topic of conversation; Could we detect dark matter at the centre of the earth? (http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12481&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30)

Okay then, so the decreasing variance of stars from the galactic core fits with the idea of gravity increasing towards the rotational plane.No, it doesn't. If it did then when people use Newtonian gravity or GR to model galaxy formation they would not get end results which look like our galaxy, with the variance increasing as you move further from the core. But they do. Therefore this decreasing variance does not imply that gravity is somehow behaving differently, in the way you claim.

Phenomenon A implies Explaination B only if there's no Explaination C which predicts Phenomenon A.

You haven't convinced me why the idea doesn't fit with the central bulge. Would you care to explain again?
If gravity was stronger on the galactic plane then it would be seen both far from the galactic core and near the galactic core. Yet we don't see that. The issue is that galaxy rotation near the centre seems to match what we'd expect but further out it doesn't, unless you include dark matter. You're claiming gravity is altered but it would alter both out from the centre and in near the centre. Your explaination alters the predicted phenomena both out on the arms of the galaxy and in the middle.

If you could provide a quantitative model then you'd be able to check it for yourself. But since you don't have that and I'm certain never will it is entirely academic whether your explaination covers both near to the core and also far from it, as you have nothing at all.

btw, I'm getting a positive response from another forum (a UK one). Someone actually understands the connection with the ice age mystery and thinks that it's a worthy and interesting topic of conversation;So? There's more than one person who believes in God, doesn't make them right. There's more than one person who believes they've been abducted by aliens, doesn't mean they have. q_w on these forums thinks your ideas are worth discussing, doesn't mean they have any scientific validity or are anything more than flights of fancy.

If you post an idea, no matter how stupid or insane or nonsensical, on enough forums you'll find someone who agrees with you. The internet is awash with crackpots and idiots agreeing with one another, doesn't mean they aren't crackpots or idiots.

Simply throwing out any 'explaination' which comes into your head as an 'elegant and simple' explaination for some bit of science you don't grasp doesn't make you right. If you're not lying about having done an astronomy degree you know the difference between a pop science book and a textbook. If, when discussing your ideas, you can't give the same level of detail as a textbook then you've not got anything. Vapid explainations are easy to come up with, anyone can make one up instantly for anything. The devil is in the details.

So? q_w on these forums thinks your ideas are worth discussing, doesn't mean they have any scientific validity or are anything more than flights of fancy.True.

If you post an idea, no matter how stupid or insane or nonsensical, on enough forums you'll find someone who agrees with you. The internet is awash with crackpots and idiots agreeing with one another, doesn't mean they aren't crackpots or idiots.

Simply throwing out any 'explaination' which comes into your head as an 'elegant and simple' explaination for some bit of science you don't grasp doesn't make you right. If you're not lying about having done an astronomy degree you know the difference between a pop science book and a textbook. If, when discussing your ideas, you can't give the same level of detail as a textbook then you've not got anything. Vapid explainations are easy to come up with, anyone can make one up instantly for anything. The devil is in the details.You seem incapable of participating in discussions in Pseudoscience without tossing out the obnoxious arrogance aspect of your personality. Hard science isn't being done in the Pseudoscience. For you to be so ignorant as to think discussions here have to comply with the standards in the hard science forums then it is your mental deficiency not the deficiency of the people discussing ideas in Pseudoscience.

Thanks QW, he'll never change though.

AN; you haven't given me any links to papers or articles refuting this idea. I only have your interpretation that the dynamics of the galactic central bulge doesn't fit with the idea of gravity increasing towards the rotational plane. Can't you give me something a bit more conclusive? btw the other forum is astronomy only, and a bit of a higher standard IMHO.

AN; I heard this song this morning and thought of you, "I am a scientist" by Guided by Voices:

I am a scientist - i seek to understand me
All of my impurities and evils yet unknown
I am a journalist - i write to you to show you
I am an incurable
And nothing else behaves like me

And i know what's right
But i'm losing sight
Of the clues for which i search and choose
To abuse
To just unlock my mind
Yeah, and just unlock my mind

I am a pharmacist
Prescriptions i will fill you
Potions, pills and medicines
To ease your painful lives
I am a lost soul
I shoot myself with rock & roll
The hole i dig is bottomless
But nothing else can set me free

And i know what's right
But i'm losing sight
Of the clues for which i search and choose
To abuse
To just unlock my mind
Yeah, and just unlock my mind

I am a scientist - i seek to understand me
I am an incurable and nothing else behaves like me

Everything is right
Everything works out right
Everything fades from sight
Because that's alright with me

I bet it sounds like me to you too! :)

AN; you haven't given me any links to papers or articles refuting this idea.You've provided no model which is to be tested or any experimental evidence for your claims. The onus is on those making the claims to back them up.

The fact it's a non-trivial matter to modify gravity to get anything close to the observed rotation profiles (else MOND would have easily succeeded) suggests the problem is harder than you might think.

Rather than throwing out vapid explainations, which anyone can do, why not actually provide something which is worth refuting? Rotation profiles are caused by aether interacting with 'galactic wind' (ie the galactic version of the solar wind) and the resultant change in the cosmological constant at the galaxy version of the heliopause. There, an explaination I just did off the top of my head. Easy.

btw the other forum is astronomy only, and a bit of a higher standard IMHO. But you don't even meet standards here. Despite all your claims for explainations of things you've not actually come up with anything worthwhile, you repeatedly show you don't know cosmology/astronomy to degree level (yet you claim to have one in astronomy) and whenever you're pressed to up your standard by people like Prom or myself you and q_w have a hissy fit. Going to a forum with higher standards just means you're further from the average level of the discussion. If you wanted valid science discussions you'd be posting in the Science sections, yet you're firmly in Pseudo. Funny that....

"joe" is a moderator in the Astrophysics forum of Society for Popular Astronomy and he isn't giving me an easy time. He's just a lot more considerate and polite than you are. We'll let anyone else judge for themselves: http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12481.

Think fractal pattern tubes of above average 'gravitonian flux densitites' and tubes of below average flux densities. Add the concept of 'saturation theory' based on the analogy of quicksand and the incoming tide and you have an intuitive model of non-newtonian galaxy formation and dynamics.