Solution to the Galaxy Rotation Problem, without Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Scott Myers, Feb 2, 2013.

  1. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    14 years ago I started learning Russian, but Google Translate is my friend now. I don't smoke, so no cigars at any time. But yes I don't think we were close, it was simply miles off.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Yes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and nice to meet you tashja
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    This is interesting http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...the-closest-yet-to-the-milky-ways-black-hole/
    "Fast-moving star is the closest yet to the Milky Way’s black hole"
    Does that mean the flat rotational curves are not happening in the Milky Way galaxy?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    We see the same rotational curve, but rekember how the Andromeda charts dive off quickly in the same few parsecs? The curve then flattens out in a strange way once we get out from the central bulge, around 5000 ly I think. The only reason we went straight for those blue stars in Andromeda, is because there would be the most drastic GTD we could encounter, and observe with relative certainty. The Milky Way imediately came to mind for me because we have physically watched, and so clocked geometricly, stars passing much faster, and much closer to our own Black Hole. That will be a good new place to start to learn what we can there eh?
     
  8. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    You should be more concerned with the suns very large core which is a great deal denser and larger than the Earth is.
     
  9. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    It seems obvious to me that most of the gravity of a galaxy such as the Milkyway is spread out in the disk of stars. It also seems obvious that the closer the stars are to central bulge or BH the faster they will be moving. If this was not so how would we ever get a spiral galaxy? Now consider even at the edge of our galaxy there is a lot of gravitational influence from the other stars in that region of the galaxy, and that means the stars there will be getting more gravitational assistance to there orbital speed.

    I have often heard the example used as to why those rim stars are moving to fast is our own solar system. To me that's like comparing apples and oranges. If we had thousands of planets in a spiral around our sun, I'm sure the outer planets would be moving faster than they are now.
     
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    There is real important science here. Would it be possible for a Sun to have thousands of planets? It could have millions of asteroids but not thousands of planets. If there was too much matter in the proto-planetary disc the proto-star would stop collapsing, and and that might be where the process stops. No doubt this happens but as yet I haven't read about it. It would be like a MACHO and could be in part contributing to the dark matter of the galaxies. - failed proto-stars, partially collapsed nebulae - interesting.
     
  11. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Why should it concern me? You don't make that clear.
     
  12. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Not 'most' of the mass, since the central bulge, not core, holds about 1/6th the overall mass in a galaxy. It is more dense as we travel inward, just as it appears, neglecting any Dark Matter of course. Though there is a lot more mass distribution, compared to a planetary system for instance.

    The signature spiral shape we see would happen if our velocities were exactly flat, i.e. if the stars all orbited at exactly 300 km/s you would still get this trailing appearance, and spiral affect. That is because if you think about the orbital period, if a star were twice as far out, but traveling the same distance over time it would still lag quite drastically, you see.

    I think we have pretty much figured out during the course of this topic that the expected curve does take this into account, the cumulative mass within each orbital sphere that is, but still falls short of solving the velocities observed. The example you usually see is the curve predicted for planets, but that is merely a simplistic way of showing the basic logic of the problem we are facing.
     
  13. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Density, as far as orbital calculations are concerned, are only important if you can get closer to this super dense core, closer to the center of the mass. The closer you can get, the faster a stable orbit must be, and the stronger the Gravitational force, for lack of better words. When something is denser overall, or less dense overall, matters much since you cannot get any closer than the surface of either object. The overall density then has the greatest effect for potential gravitational influence.
     
  14. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I was just using that for an example. In our solar system most of the gravitational influence is in the center, the sun itself. That doesn't happen to be the case for our galaxy where most of the gravitational influence is spread out in the disk of stars. That disk of stars has a lot more influence on the outer stars than I've heard any scientists giving credit to, to help account for the greater than expected speed of those stars.
     
  15. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    The Average density of Sun is not an issue to be concerned about. But I would think you first need to establish the density of dark matter around our solar system. Sense we haven't been able to detect any DM, that might be very hard to do.
     
  16. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I was just not very clear on how this applied to DM. Still not. When our sun turns into a red giant it will have much less average density than it does now. I guess a stable orbit within the suns plasma surface would be impossible. But I suspect it might still take some time before our planet would be totally burned up and gone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Agreed. Our Density, or should we say distribution, of Dark Matter is compiled where it is needed to account for our descepencies in expected orbital velocities and what we are observing.
     
  18. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    That may be, however, it's not documented or explained very well in any of the science programs on TV. Why do you think that is?
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Because most science programs on TV are crap.
     
  20. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Sometimes you just have to ignore the dumbed down stuff.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
  22. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
  23. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    It was based on the required gravitational effect. I haven't got my gray-matter around the dark matter problem yet.
     

Share This Page