HYPOTHESIS: 'Recession' & 'Redshift' & Dark Matter Variations Over Time

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RealityCheck, Mar 12, 2012.

  1. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Reassignment to Alternate 'Theories' is a good suggestion! . . . .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your same old psuedo-science / conjecture, without evidence it is just so much hot air

    The big bang is not conjecture it is a theory that is well tested. The red shift is only one piece of evidence of the big bang. Your conjecture devolves into circular logic.

    Yeah, you keep saying that, but it does not make it true. How many ways/times can I put it?

    You say there is new data - so where is it, should I just trust you?

    Oh, it is a feeling. Sort of a data feel to it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ah yes, do your work for you. I feel / believe that your hypothesis is a turd / mud monkey and would not spend a second looking into it, that is your job.

    It is a shame you are so busy - I guess that explains why you don't have time to do any research and support your baseless conjectures.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    I am convinced that RealityCheck else wants to say than to present a new theory.
    But this is just my opinion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Good morning, origin.


    What pseudo-science are you talking about, mate?

    I point to the PROFESSIONALLY OBSERVED cosmological redshift (a long observed/established scientific phenomenon).

    I also point to the most recent PROFESSIONAL observations/studies to do with Dark Matter dynamics over cosmological ages, DM distributions within and between galaxies and their gravitational effects and contributions to galactic/group gravity wells (gravitational lensing and redshifting of light etc).

    I merely allude to same and make observations/hypothesis based on the most recent literature/news relevant to the subject matter. Then I posit an OP discussion on the implications of the new hypothesis so that others here can present arguments for or against any aspect of the OP matters involving MAINSTREAM CONSIDERATIONS in CURRENT ASTRONOMY/COSMOLOGY science discoveries/studies in the news and literature.

    So where is the 'pseudo-science there? Are you invoking that phrase because you are incapable of actually addressing the OP matters as presented, and would rather 'dismiss' it with glib name-calling? What is your agenda?

    The Big Bang scenarios WERE ALL CONJECTURES WHEN FIRST HYPOTHESIZED. Did you miss what I said about that point?

    And since the redshift was the only basis for that conjecture (at the time), then naturally all other/subsequent 'observations' were later 'interpreted' within the framework of that initial conjecture based on redshift data. Can there be anything more 'circuitous/self-referencing than that?

    And what are the other "pieces of the evidence of big bang"? Are these other pieces INDEPENDENT of the initial BB conjecture/hypothesis interpretations based on the initial redshift data? Ask yourself: If there was no 'redshift data' available, would these other "pieces of evidence for big bang" be absolutely definitive in indicating/supporting a big bang conjecture/hypothesis then and now?

    Consider: Perhaps the initial interpretation/conjecture for big bang may not have arisen at all based solely on these 'other pieces' of evidence you allude to? If not, then they should each be further reviewed without all the assumptions flowing from the initial recession conjectures/hypotheses/theories?


    WHo claimed it was 'true'? I merely allude to the extant professional observational evidence/studies on Dark Matter dynamics/distributions in/outside galaxies/groups over cosmological times/spaces. It's all there in the science news/literature for YOU to judge for yourself if it is 'true' or not.

    I merely presented an hypothesis/implications OP based on the latest professional studies/observations in DM effects/distribution, and put it to the forum to discuss and present any relevant information for or against the OP hypothesis/implications BASED ON KNOWN old/new PROFESSIONAL studies/information regarding the astronomy/cosmology aspects of redshift and dark matter/gravity effects. No more, no less.

    So, how many times need I point this out to you before you stop making these empty/strawmanning comments/assertions about me and the OP as presented? Perhaps you could better spend your time actually availing yourself of the latest DM news/literature before you make any more unwarranted assertions/strawmen about claims of 'true'? Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Show me where in this thread I have asked you to "trust" me or anyone/anything else except the professionals in the field and their latest studies/observations regarding DM?


    On the contrary, I actually asked YOU to read up on the latest DM news/literature from the PROFESSIONAL astronomers/cosmologists and THEN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND and see what insights/confidence YOU 'take' from it.

    That is SCIENTIFIC METHOD rule #1: DON'T TRUST, do the necessary due diligence and THEN arrive at a conclusion based on the professionally obtained/presented (peer reviewed) evidence (which any self-respecting would-be scientist should take the trouble to find in the science news/literature before commenting).

    That is the way to science discourse; not mere glib strawmen and disparagements which demonstrate nothing in fact except 'elitist attitude' in lieu of humble effort to discuss the OP as presented.

    Why do you persist in this juvenile glibness and strawmanning tactic? Are you afraid to do your own due diligence as demanded by the scientific method? Surely you can read. Surely you have ample time to dedicate to the scientific search for the latest DM information I alluded to? Are you waiting to be spoonfed the conclusion too? Just look and it's all there at your fingertips. Or don't you want to look and see for yourself? Others can find it; so you should have no trouble doing the same if you are genuine.



    Why bring such emotive terms into a science site? Are you driven by emotion rather than the science method/ethic to explore/discuss without bring all that emotional attitude to justify why YOU won't be bothered to go see for yourself? Such laziness and rationalisation for elitist conduct is not becoming to a science site member who professes to 'know' things but will not take the trouble to find out for himself if what he 'knows' is up-to-date or not. Not very flattering to your image, whatever that image is that you are trying to convey to this forum.

    You will not be told, will you? I am not a professional, so this is not my occupation, hence my time is limited to what I can spare from my other life/work commitments/issues that lately have become more time/energy-consuming. It is part of being HUMAN and subject to things out of our control. Why cannot you understand that not all people who post here have unlimited time?

    And just because they are busy and do not have unlimited time because they are human and have a life, do you wish to harass them into NOT posting their hypotheses/ideas which ARE based on accepted scientific data (as is obviously the case herein)? Do you wish to ONLY hear from people who DO have all the time in the world, irrespective of what they may have to contribute even if it is not yto your complete liking just because YOU do not wish to do the work demanded of you by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

    Take a breather, mate. Inform yourself of the latest news/literature on Dark Matter studies/discoveries/observations/speculations presented by the PROFESSIONALS in astronomy/cosmology. Then come back and discuss the OP further without your 'attitude' and 'emotional/strawmanning' innuendoes. Thanks!


    Oh, by the way, as others have pointed out to you, I have NOT presented 'a theory'. It is an hypothesis/implications based on latest observations, and put same for discussion of those interested. So please do stop STRAWMANNING both the OP and myself. It does you no credit, nor does it do any credit to a supposed science site which professes to want science discussion and not pedestrian troll tactics. OK?

    I ask you now politely: Please cease and desist your unscientific tactics and either engage fairly and less 'emotively' or keep out of this thread/discussion. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .

    Good luck and good thinking, mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  8. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    James R.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What gives? This thread was relocated to "Alternative Theories" without even allowing the OP author to put the case as to why it should not be so relocated.

    As others have pointed out, this OP has NO THEORY TO PRESENT at all.

    It merely alludes to PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMICAL and COSMOLOGICAL scientific data/discoveries both old and new regarding Cosmological Redshift and Dark Matter, the consideration of which data/discoveries leads logically to an HYPOTHESIS and its IMPLICATIONS, both of which were put to the forum as the OP for discussion/comment/input.

    This TOPIC OP involves KNOWN SCIENCE in ASTRONOMY and COSMOLOGY, and posits NO 'theory' of its own, merely discussion points ON THE KNOWN old/new PROFESSIONAL news/literature on redshift and dark matter and all possible gravitational effects on the light we observe now/here!

    It is patently clear that this OP/thread belongs IN the astronomy/cosmology section, since NO 'theory' has been presented at all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So why on earth did someone so arbitrarily and without consultation with the OP author relocate it to the 'alternative theories' section? Is it because of OPINION rather than FACT?


    I ask with respect that this thread be placed back into the original section to which it was LEGITIMATELY posted in the first place. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Good morning.

    The pseudo-science is involved with your conjecture that the DM has decreased in galaxies. You have consistently refused to supply any evidence that this idea is anything other than something you made up.

    You have proposed a hypothesis. It is up to you to support your hypothesis. I am not trying to refute your hypothesis I am just trying to see if it is even worth considering. Currently without any evidence, you do not have a viable hypothesis, you have a conjecture or just an idea.

    I am simply calling it as I see it. You have presented no supporting evidence. There is also a strongly supported theory that is at odds with your idea.

    Of course not. All hypothesis start out as an idea or conjecture, but not all conjuectures turn into hypothesis or theories. Most die and with no supporting evidence they die a very quick death indeed.

    Absolutely wrong. If you were not ignorant of the big bang theory you would not say something so silly.

    Yep.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You are again showing your ignorance, the big bang theory predates Hubbles discovery of the redshift / galactic distance relationship. How is it possible for you to disagree with a theory that you do not even seem to be familiar with?

    Here we go again with the unamed professionals.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So you are saying you have no evidence so would I please look for some evidence to support your conjecture? Ah, no.

    All of your posts have said: DM matter districbution bla bla bla, or the professionals say bla bla bla, or the literature says bla bla bla. What you are saying is that I should trust your interpretations of these unnamed sources and professionals. Sorry it does not work that way.

    Present some data or evidence! Put up or shut up!


    Not my job - that is your job.

    You are just repeating the same crap over and over. So again I say if you have any evidence for your conjecture now would be a swell time to present it.
     
  10. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi again, origin.

    Thanks for your prompt and polite response. Much appreciated!

    I have alluded to the professional news/literature which treats the dynamics/effects over cosmological time/distannces the evolution of galaxies and dark matter content/effects within and without galaxies as a result of galaxy collisions/interactions etc which strip matter and dark matter equally from within galaxies. The observation that the galaxies do NOT have a clear cut bounday cut-off for dark matter, and that it actually extends into far intergalactic space shows that the DM is NOT all within galaxies.

    I merely presented a logical hypothesis for discussion based on the gravity and redshift and evolutionary implications of those latest professional discoveries in astronomy and cosmology fields. Period.

    There is NO 'pseudo-science' even remotely involved in the OP as presented.

    What YOU make of these latest professional discoveries/studies re DM is up to you. I ask for discussion based on THE LATEST KNOWN SCIENCE. If you will not 'update' your own knowledge base because you don't want to look up the latest scienc news/literature in this area, that is your affair, not mine. If you don't want to contribute based on the LATEST science, then what good is your input here?

    But I have asked you to see the latest news/literature on DM for yourself and update your relevant knowledge base thereby. If you will not trouble to do at least that much due diligence, then what's the use of any discussion based on incomplete information?

    Read the latest stuff and see for yourself whether the OP/discussion is or is not "...even worth considering", as you put it.


    And I am 'seeing' in the context of the LATEST relevant scientific news/literature on DM. What you base your own 'seeing' may not be as complete as it could be if only you would do the necessary 'updating' of your knowledge base on DM dynamics/distribution etc.

    It keeps coming back to YOU and your efforts or lack of them in order to 'see' for yourself if the OP is based on the latest professional information or not.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hence the point of posting the hypothesis here on a science discussion site. If it were 'complete' and fully justified, it would be a finished product for a peer reviewed journal article.

    I present no theory. Nor do I ask you to 'trust me' or to 'believe the latest DM professional studies/discoveries are 'true'. You are a scientist. And to discuss any matter scientifically, you should 'update' your scientific base for comment (in this instance, the latest DM news/literature 'updates' much of what was previously 'known' or 'conjectured' about DM and its gravity/evolution/distribution etc). Start by doing some reading-up of the latest. Then you can argue the toss one way or the other. It is a hypothesis and implications; it can be discussed intelligently and fairly. No more, no less. I don't have to 'prove' anything. It is up tyou IF you are interested in this, to discuss it using the latest info which you can easily get if you wanted to look.



    "silly"? Is that your well reasoned and well supported argument which all here should accept and go home? Less of the glibness and more of the justification for your comment. Thanks.

    "Yep"? That's it? No examples? Mate, for someone who is demanding much of others by way of justification, you seem blithely oblivious that such responses from YOU only makes a mockery of your indignant demands of others to 'back up' etc etc.

    Perhaps you could present your supporting examples of such and we can discuss/review them and see if they are asindependently and definitively indicative of Big Bang and recession as you obviously think they are? Remember, they must 'stand on their own' without the pre-interpretation/availability of the redshift data which was interprted/modeled to indicate 'recession' etc.


    As posts in another forum will attest to, I am quite aware of the 'cosmic egg' and other such like (scientifically uninformed and purely philosophical) precursor speculations in this area.

    What I was referring to is the conjectures BASED ON THE HUBBLE REDSHIFT WORK which for the first time allowed conjectures/hypotheses to use actual data to 'support' the more 'scientific' conjecture/speculation doing the rounds about that time.

    Remember, we're not discussing ancient superstitious conjectures/speculations; we're discussing last century's, and more recently modified/re-interpreted, PROFESSIONAL scientific interpretations of that redshift and the newest DM data.

    That is the whole point of this OP/thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    You are internet savyy I assume? You'll have no trouble to confirm or falsify whether these professional astronomers/cosmologists exist and whether or not the latests studies/discoveries by/from them appears in the relevant news/literature on Dak Matter distribution, effects, dynamics, evolution etc within and between galaxies.

    Go to it, mate. It will be easy for you to show if I am lying to you. Anyay, I don't want to prejudice your own updating efforts in the DM matters. Just do it for yourself to update your relevant knowledge base in this area. Hey?

    No. I ask you ALSO to discuss where the facts may prove the hypothesis incorrect. I don't ask you to 'support' or 'believe' anything posited here. You are perfectly capable of informing yourself on the matters alluded to and then contributing intelligently and relevantly to the DISCUSSION. This is not a peer review of a complete 'theory' It is a discussion of the latest DM info and its implications for what else is known/interpreted in/by the current relevant science. NO more, no less, mate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What "does not work that way"? This is a DISCUSSION of an OP hypothesis based on the latest professional science news/literature pertaining to DM and its gravity/evolution etc etc. You don't need to be shy of looking up the latest/recent news/discoveries I allude to. If anything, yu will benefit in that you will be updating your own knowledge base on the matters involved in the OP/Hypothesis discussion (not peer review of a complete work, remember).

    A littel genuine effort and some give and take will waste less time in such exchanges as these and actually allow more time and energy (which is in short supply at the best of times) for genuine and intelligent (and less confrontationist?) DISCUSSION of the salient points presented for consideration and comment based on the up-to-date scientific information on the matter.




    No 'job' involved. Only DISCUSSION with genuine participants who are abreast of the LATEST BACKGROUND information involved in the matters alluded to by the OP hypothesis/implications. No more, no less.

    "same crap"? Is that another attempt at painting and dismissing glibly even though the DISCUSSION PROPER is not even hardly begun? I expect better from anyone purporting to be here for SCIENCE before EMOTION.


    Cheers, mate. Back later or tomorrow (sorry, life is like that at the moment!). Bye.

    .
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    The Alternative Theories folder is for alternative theories, ideas and hypothesis, which are not generally supported by reference in the general scientific community.

    I am not one to discourage, out of the box thinking. Most who have read many of my posts should know that or at least see the seeds, in my own perspective(s). That said this does seem to be your own interpretation and projection.., your own ideas. There is not much if anything in the way of supporting reference, for these conclusions, aside from your interpretaions.

    The main Science folders do require, some support from credible references. Not as strictly as would say posting on Physics Forums. (a freedom here I am glad of). This folder allows more latitude and requires less in the way of supporting reference. Essentially, as long as there is some logic to your argument it should be acceptable.

    So far what has been discussed, does to me seem more suited to Alternative Theories than one of the main Science folders. Moving the thread here really is a favor as it allows a greater degree of freedom in the discussion. Well, at least as far as the forums rules are concerned. There will almost always be preassure exerted by other posters. There seems little in the way of discussions that is without, usually clear difference of opinion.
     
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi OnlyMe. Thank you for your response.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I understand where you're coming from, but there is an important difference between what you describe about others threads and my OP/thread as presented for discussion. I will answer your comments as I try to elucidate that difference....



    There was no 'alternative theory' posited, merely OBSERVATIONS and HYPOTHESIS based on te latest professional ASTRONOMICAL and COSMOLOGICAL news/literature on Dark Matter distribution/evolution and gravity effects in and between galaxies etc etc.

    It was to do with the latest astronomy/cosmology discoveries etc in the professional field. I merely use that to arrive at a hypothesis indicated by the latest discoveries, and ask for input/discussion from anyone interested in the ASTRONOMY/COSMOLOGY aspects/implications which my observations of the latest professional work/reports contain.


    No more, no less.

    Certainly no 'alternative theory'; only discussion points put in 'hypothesis' form and asking for responses on that basis.



    There is the body of the latest news items and literature provided by the professional astronomers and cosmologists in the relevant DM and gravity etc fields. It's all there; and I have been reading it over the last few months. A simple search by those genuinely interested in this discussion of recent discoveries/information on DM by professional astronomers/cosmologists etc is not 'hidden' from anyone who will take the minimal trouble to look. I cannot be expected to place a complete and fully documented 'alternative theory' candidate when that is NOT what I am doing. I ask for discussion of the latest info/implications of the new DM work/results. That's all.


    What more references than the latest news/discoveries about DM distribution and dynamics/evolution contained in the body of scientific news/literature which anyone interested can easily find for themselves if they are genuinely interested in discussing the OP hypothesis/implications OF that latest body of professionallly published works by astronomers/cosmologists etc under the heading of "DARK MATTER".

    This is not a knidergarten; nor a peer reviewd journal; anyone genuinely interested can do their own research and then make intelligent and informed contributions to the discussion of the science and the implications.

    I understand, and really do appreciate, the good intentions which may have motivated the moving of this thread from there to here. But that is not the point. I did not want 'speculation' or 'unscientifically based' comments on the OP.

    I ask for others' consideration of the latest PROFESSIONAL data/discoveries etc in astronomy/cosmology etc related to Dark Matter and its evolution/distribution etc and its SCIENTIFICALLY BASED implications for any other aspects of the current PROFESSIONAL THEORY which includes that Dark Matter content/effect as part of the accepted theories (note: NOT 'my' theories, as I have posited none, alternative or otherwise; I made hypothesis based on professional observations and ONLY asked for input/discussion WITHOUT at any stage introducing or calling for any 'pseudo-science' in any way shape or form. That's it).

    Anyhow, I have said my say about 'the move'. I leave it to the judgement of the mods as to whether or not 'the move' will be reversed because I only made OP based on professionally published/available studies/reports etc on dark matter and its implications in ASTRONOMY and COSMOLOGY irrespective of what I hypothesize to start the discussion directly related to and addressing the current professional status re DM in the professional fields of ASTRONOMY and COSMOLOGY etc. No more, no less. Hence my original placement of this discussion thread in that appropriate forum section.

    Thanks again, OnlyMe, for your kind efforts and trouble trying to explain the possible reason for 'the move'; but with respect, I maintain that there is no reason for that move other than a possible misunderstanding by some well-meaning mod.

    In any case, I bear no ill will for any mod/other here about 'the move'. Life is too short. Just wanted to put my case against 'the move'. That's all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Cheers and good luck with your 'new ideas' discussions, mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  13. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    RealityCheck,

    I did a quick look back through the thread, I did not re-read, just a quick scan. I saw no references or links. This is what has been the point or issue of debate in a number of posts. It is one thing to say something is generally available scientific information and another to actually provide readers with enough information or a link, so they can check it for their selves.

    Here in Alternative Theories it is ok to post not just theories, but ideas and hypothesis. In the main Science folders you really need to and some references or links, if not from the start, when asked...
     
  14. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Thanks again for your trouble and efforts in this, mate. Much appreciated, I assure you.

    The point was that I made an Op for discussion. Period. I did not put a theory or make a claim of being right about anything. I asked others to contribute NOT accept what the OP presented.

    Also, my time is limited and I have read so much in the last few months about so many areas of the universal physics/studies in so many fields that I haven't the time to reseek all the references that would be just as easily available to anyone genuinely interested in pursuing a discussion AFTER they have updated themselves in the relevant redshift and Dark Matter aspects. Not unreasonable to expect anyone wishing to discuss the matter to have some background of their own about it.

    Anyway, when I see where some of the established posters here tell others to 'go read the textbook' or go search out the information' etc etc, they are doing just exactly what I did. Only I asked for discussion and only those interested in genuine discussion need to do the backgrounding/updating on the matters for themselves. Else they should not presume to discuss matters which are beyond their current knoeledge base (especially if they won't even just check the latest news/literature on the professional dark matter distribution/effects in astronomy/cosmology reports easily found if genuinely looked for on the internet.


    But I take on board what you say; and will, when I have more time, go looking for some of the DM matter references which you say would make it easier for those not prepared to search it out for themselves. Thanks again, mate...much appreciated! Leave the thread here until we see what transpires.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
  15. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I see your point on this issue. There are times when such comments are used almost as insults, as in get an education.., and others which may be legitimate.

    I would say reference a book or other source by name, if it is a hard copy or it is not generally available online, and where a reference is generally available online, provide a link.
     
  16. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Hi everyone!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sorry to have not posted here lately. Been busy.

    Anyhow, here's just the sort of galaxy evolution processes that 'shed' earlier Dark Matter content from galaxies which then become less 'red' because the former DM gravity contribution is much diminished.

    That is what I have been trying to explain; that the observed redshift is due to light from 'there' (earlier stronger gravity source galaxies) arrive now 'here' in our (weaker gravity galaxy) which has since lost its own DM content (by collision etc processes as described in the link below) and so the redshift is not totally reversed (blueshifted) and so we observe the uncountered redshift values and interpret them as indications of 'expansion-recession' when in fact they might just as well be said to indicate exactly what I said might be: that the redshift is due to gravity 'mismatch' between galaxy gravity strengths 'then' and 'now' due to evolutionary processes which 'spread' galaxy DM content into intergalactic space, just as observed by astronomers in the link below....

    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-discovery-musket-ball-cluster.html


    Not so 'crank' an idea now, is it, that galaxies lost much of their former DM content and hence lost much f their gravity strength since light left the distant galaxies observed to be so 'redshifted'?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers!

    PS: Admin/Mods: As I tried to explain from the outset, my OP made observations/interpretations from actual astronomical data, and not just 'speculation'. It is clear (please read above-linked article) my OP observations were based on actual mainstream scientific information already available (and now even more evidenced as per link above), this thread/OP is NOT 'alternative theory' based, so can you please transfer it back to the mainstream cosmology section? Much appreciated!

    .

    .
     
  17. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    HI origin!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is the most recent evidence....

    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-discovery-musket-ball-cluster.html


    Will that do to be going on with, mate?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Any consistent comments/observations from you or anyone else will be most welcome for the discussion of my OP hypothesis and observations about redshift interpretations once galaxies are known to lose Dark Matter related gravity well strength over time.

    Cheers!

    PS: Please Note: When I tried to reach the link url in the previous post I got a message to the effect that it has been CHANGED by the PhysOrg site to the new link url provided in this post! But when I tried that same url link again later, it eventually came up OK. I don't know what is going wrong over there, but I posted in this post the link url I got via a different route. I hope both work OK now! Good luck!
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2012
  18. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    This article does not support there being less dark matter in either galaxy in any way. It only says that the dark matter is non-interacting with itself.
     
  19. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi Believe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Read it again mate. This is a CLUSTER of galaxies interacting, not just two galaxies colliding.

    The Musket-Ball cluster is just the most recent example where CLUSTERS of galaxies result in interactions which make Dark Matter move easily through gaseous baryonic matter and galaxies as the forces strip the ordinary matter away from the Dark Matter all over the place in many complex localised effects ending up with Dark Matter between the galaxies more and more (instead of galaxies forever keeping their original DM content intact over epochs and evolution interactions).

    The interactions can happen on many different scales than in the clusters of galaxies like in this case. The electromagnetic forces etc which agglomerate ordinary matter will keep such matter around (except for the very hottest gases streaming out), but since the Dark Matter does not interact except via gravity, the DM will just continue away from the normal matter agglomerations which occur in such normal matter 'collisions' events over time.

    Hence why the DM content MUST eventually diminish in the original host galaxies over time due to such epochal evolutionary interactions which see the DM lost to intergalactic space.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And if our own galaxy has since lost much of its own original DM (and associated gravity well strength) then the light entering our telescopes here/now will naturally appear more redshifted because it left the source galaxies there/then when the source gravity well was much stronger, and hence any redshifting climbing out of source galaxy gravity well is not sufficiently reversed by coming down into our own galaxy's much weaker gravity well here/now (because our DM content is much diminished since the light left that distant galaxy source, and all galaxies have since lost much DM, so the galaxies we 'see' in our telescopes will have lost much of their DM content since the light we see 'now/here' left them 'there/then').

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers!

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2012
  20. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Sorry, I should have read it more carefully then just skimming it.
     
  21. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800


    HI origin!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is the most recent evidence....

    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-discovery-musket-ball-cluster.html

    Will that do to be going on with, mate?

    Any further relevant comments/discussion on the OP observations and Hypothesis from you or anyone else here would be most welcome and much appreciated!

    Cheers!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Interseting stuff. That is not really evidence for you hypothesis though is it. That is great evidence for dark matter. The violent interaction of galaxies can seperate the dark matter from the normal matter has been known since the discovery of the bullet cluster. Does the dark matter and the normal matter coalecse again? Your theory that dark matter leaks from galaxies remains unevidenced.
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    If the OP is saying that the galaxies aren't really receding, and proposing some sort of alternative to the Big Bang, then you need alternate explanations to 5 results: the CMB; the primordial elemental abundances; the Population I, II, and III stars; the apparent recession of galaxies and the details of the CMB anisotropy which are all consistent with a finite age of the universe, GR and a particular and detailed big bang cosmology model.

    Secondly, your model violates conservation of momentum-mass-energy. [[very mean analogy barely suppressed here]]

    Thirdly, your model neglects that we can map dark matter by its gravity -- it's rather clumpy and if there was significantly more of it in the past it would be evidenced in many ways. It's not possible, I claim based on a sketch of a GR calculation, to redshift greatly a whole galaxy without collapsing it into black hole.

    Fourthly, your model puts an age limit on the universe since everything will be black holes if you go back far enough. But you don't say what event triggers the present claimed unverse of matter-loss.

    Finally, distant gas clouds are heated by the (much hotter in the distant past) CMB, and this re-radiated heat matches with the conventional big bang model.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012222
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/640/1/L25
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...oi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361:200809727&Itemid=129
     

Share This Page