Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Redeem my self from what? I havn't lied...I havn't mislead....In fact on near all issues involed on BHs, my views are totally supported by experts.
Obviously, it is you that needs redeeming. Best of luck in that regard.

Sure you did, and it was totally refuted many times by many posters.

DM is generally widely accepted bcause of the amount of evidence found supporting it including the convincing and unmistakable bullet cluster scenario.

The issue of DM remains as strong as ever, despite you looking for excuses to somehow invalidate it. The amounts we think will apply may vary as precision and accuracy improves, just as the age of the Universe since the BB has been refined with new data to 13.83 billion years.
Leave the assumptions to the big boys RAJESH, you have no idea and are not priveleged to the incoming data that becomes available.

Oh stop the pretentious fantasising Rajesh......Firstly the corrugated findings are not as yet peer reviewed or accepted, and like I said, your other ideas have been totally refuted. Stop making up scenarios to focus the spotlight on yourself. That's not going to happen.
DM is as I said, as strong as ever, and any final precision re how much will be worked out properly [if needed] by those that are at the coal front. And that leaves you and I out Rajesh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well as all your threads strongly suggest, it is you making suggestions, proposing new hypothesis, misinterpreting BH data.
I'm totally in most cases aligned with the mainstream view for one very simple reason...It's the one that matches reality better, makes more accurate predictions, and aligns with our experimental results.
As that changes, as in certain areas it will, any new observations, any new predictions will be considered and the theory will be modified or changed.
I can say with near 100% certainty, that neither you, nor I, will be either involved or instrumental in having any changes implemented.
So let's stop having ourselves on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did I miss something? It was my understanding that the 150% increase in the size of the Milky Way, was distribution.., not additional mass/stars.., etc. I really could have missed it, but I don't remember anything suggesting that we had missed 1/3 of the Milky Way's total visible mass. What I read was that the distribution of mass was not in a flat plane. Which sould really not be so surprising since it has been known for a long time that the earth's orbit, moves north and south through the galactic plane... Which should imply that most of the rest of the mass in orbit around the galactic center, also follows a similar path.., you know the earth not being special.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep correct.....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-corrugated-galaxy.145306/

and

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-corrugated-galaxy-milky-larger-previously.html#jCp

In fact I had also asked a question in relation to that finding, re the likelyhood of our Solar system following those corrugations in its oscillations above and below the galactic plane, and also with regards to the "density waves".

It does though show that our alternative hypothesis pushers will grab hold of anything they deem possible of highlighting some error or other in our standard cosmological model...the grasping at straws effect I call it, and just as obvious in the Stephen Hawking article a while back on a BH EHs quantum firewall effects.

The ironic part about it all, is that new data is being unearthed everyday and applied to our cosmological model as required, not by these pretentious blow ins, but by the mainstream cosmological academia itself, which is how science and the scientific method works anyway.

 

after your this post, I attempted to decipher the paper on this point....Mostly the Paper is quite complex and beyond my reach as on date....still I could not find out explicit mention of 150% (or 50% more) anywhere in the paper with respect to either distribution or with respect to mass. It talks of 100,000 light years and 150,000 light years as the span of our MW in general (not as outcome of the paper), probably this 150% is loosely taken from these two figure (thats my guess) to sensationalize the issue.

My take is that paper provides a math for star counting at various locations (from Sun) and mentions increase in star count, so it must be talking about increase in mass, even otherwise exact meaning of increase in 50% distribution keeping the mass same makes lesser sense than increase in mass. Moreover the focus of paper is few Kpc (not near outer Horizon of Galaxy) from Sun only, so it must be talking about new areas of density forming some kind of corrugation (waves) structure.

 

Paddoboy,

Can you clarify how and where the paper says that there is no increase in the mass of MW but there is increase in distribution ? Thanks in advance.

 

Rajesh, first you admit the paper is beyond your reach and then you begin to draw conclusions?

The paper seems to be clearly describing asymmetric star distributions, leading to the corrugation described in the article, not the observation of new stars.

They are describing distribution not more stars!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More to the point, can you show me where it says anything about any dramatic increase in mass firstly, and secondly how much of that mass is attributed to an increase in the numbers of stars.

Let me say that estimates for the numbers of stars in our galaxy the last time I looked varied between 100 billion to 400 billion.
This corrugated discovery is a great discovery and will be noteworthy in refining tolerances re our own Solar System's oscillating nature above and below the galactic plane, how it applies to the spiral arms and density waves, and possibly even a refinement of the DM count.

It's cosmologists like this by these experts at the forefront and the coal face that are making these continued discoveries so that we are able to refine our theories re the BB, expansion rate and DM and DE.
They are our present day giants Rajesh, and worthy of our total respect.
I'm sure you agree on both counts.

 

Your objective is to oppose me for the sake of opposing.........because I am sure this paper is far beyond your reach, and still you are concluding based on fallacies.

By the way asymmetrical distribution (of star or anything) does not necessarily lead to the corrugation rather a symmetrical distribution may lead to under certain conditions. By the way this symmetry-asymmetry makes no sense without the reference plane or point. So your final conclusion or understanding is based on incorrect premises which you hold. Nowhere the paper says that 50% increase in the distribution, read again, and conclude only when you are sure, or give disclaimer.

 

Funny that....This is the reason why I dragged up that old thread, with the same claim made by everyone that took part about yourself.
You appear to have a habit of turning your own shortcomings around to others trying to educate you.
People are not silly. They are able to read your posts, and I'm quite able to point them in that direction.

 

If you read my post # 479, thats exactly what I said. Yes, somewhere in the paper it talks of increase in star count, but here again I was cautious in concluding emphatically, It was just my take and my guess about 150%.

This is what I highlighted when referring to the old revived post on Galaxy Speed Distribution, good, you also follow the same.

Yes, there cannot be any dispute on this.

But the point is Paddoboy, asking questions, challenging the various assumptions, and giving possible alternative explanation, do not amount to disrespect, infact this is one of the ways science works.

 

And of course we have a point of reference. The galactic central plane, which with the aid of their state of the art equipement and probes they can establish reasonably well...Plus the distance of our own Sun from the galactic center and SMBH.

 

Now you begin with comedy?

 

But the point is all the participants in that thread, could not give any counter to what I proposed there. You all were giving an argument that scientists cannot be morons to miss this out. Fine they cannot be and they are not, but thats not the argument to counter an alternative. I still stick to that.

 

Perception...

Some people can find comedy in facts (if they are ignorant about the facts) and
Some people can find facts in comedy (satire)

So you have the right to see comedy in facts, no problem.

 

Oh dear, this state of art equipment does not give a nice beautiful photograph of galactic central plane !! You are making it sound like that.

 

STUFF UP.

 

Dont be silly. I mean they produce data as well as photographs which you havn't the necessary skills to interpret...simple as that.

 

Thats comedy..
Photographs of Galactic Plane ?? Nicely developed in Paddolab.

 

It does not talk of increase star count, except references to above and below the central plane in relation to how they concluded the corrugations.
Certainly nothing in regards to total star count, considering the fairly large range of estimates we already have and the difficulty in realising any "exact" count of stars.

Did you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All I recall was you casting doubts on the center of rotation of our Solar system, and the existence of a "Super Sun" ....which appeard to been just some day dreaming to put it nicely.

And all those that claim innacuracies in cosmology, the theories re BHs etc, should accept that they are in a privaleged position to add to our knowledge.

Nothing wrong in asking questions, but the questioners sometimes have an agenda and some unsupported notion deep seated within them, and just do not hear the answers they are given.
Alternative explanations are also OK, as long as they [1] Describe what we observe better than the incumbent model, [2] has observational or experimental evidence supporting their concept, and [3] are really needed.
And as I have said many times to many of our alternative hypothesis pushers, in my very very humble opinion, any new discovery, any great finding, any possible alternative solution that improves on what we have, will not be coming from people that attend a science forum, or anyone else from out in left field. It will almost certainly originate from those with access to the ISS, the HST, the JWST when launched, the LHC, the RHIC, the VLA when completed.
They are in the box seat, and they will be making any necessary changes, after peer review of course.