Dark Energy – Required to explain a plausible mistake ?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Aug 16, 2014.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Possibly a small mistake created due to plotting of two unrelated variables resulted into huge energy diversion of scientific community towards the search of that elusive Dark matter, which never existed and not required. The Speeds in the Galaxy Rotation Curve are that of one step higher, which is expected to be constant in the Central Motion and has not much relevance with the radial distance against which it was plotted.

    A general feature of the galaxy rotation curves that have been obtained through measurement to date is that the orbital speed of stars and gas is almost constant as far from the galactic centre as can be measured, that is, stars are observed to revolve around the centre of the galaxy at almost the same speed over a large range of distances from the centre of the galaxy. If disc galaxies had mass
    distribution similar to the observed distributions of stars and gas then the orbital speed would decline at increasing distances in the same way as do other systems with most of their mass in the centre, such as the solar system or the planet moon system.

    It is very simple to appreciate that a central orbital motion like that of our planets across Sun, should have a decreasing Rotation Speed Curve as we move away from the Center as per Keppler’s second law, but this does not happen with various stars orbiting around the Galactic Center. So to account for this, the concept of Dark matter was propagated, which was responsible for this additional gravity.

    In my opinion the present Rotation Curves are nothing but the observational misplacing of Data. That is the speed or velocity which is being plotted is of one stage higher, and thus giving this constant curve.

    Take for example the orbital velocities of our planets.

    Orbital Velocity
    (Km/s) 47.4 35 29.8 24.1 13.1 9.7 6.8 5.4

    It is apparent that orbital velocity is falling as we go away from the center that is the Sun. But there is another relevant motion, a step higher, that is the Entire Solar system is orbiting around something. Why I have said something, because it may call for thinking away from the present notion.

    Now the speed of our Sun along with our planets with respect to this Center Point (presently taken as Galactic center) is around 230 Km / Sec. So if we were to observe this speed then almost all the planets would be moving at a speed of 230 km / sec. This data will give a flat curve for our planetary system, a misplaced analysis.So the Galaxy Rotation Curve which forced scientists to come up with the concept of Dark matter is misplaced, the speed which is being plotted is of one step higher, it is not of the immediate center around which the respective Sun is orbiting, it is of one stage higher where multiple Sun’s (with planets) are orbiting around.

    This suggests that:

    1. The observed and measured speed is of entire Galaxy System around the Universal Pivot Point, which of course would be same for all the Suns.

    2. Or there are multiple intermediate Super Solar Systems consisting of multiple solar systems like ours.

    The suggestion one is difficult to accept because that would be the speed of Entire Galaxy around the Universal Pivot Point, which would not be possible to find out without an external reference point, and hence suggestion two is more likely.

    That is our Solar System is not directly orbiting around the Galactic Center, we are a part of Super Solar system which consists of multiple solar systems like ours. Similarly there are multiple such Super Solar Systems. Now this is quite likely that these Super Solar Systems are orbiting around the Galactic Center.

    Conclusion: The Dark matter concepts are not required for explanation of Galaxy Rotation Curve, simply because the curve is inherently between two unrelated variables. The paper also predicts the existence of Super Solar Systems.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    This is mainstream cosmology.
    You are in the wrong forum.
    You need to be in alternative theory forum obviously.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    First of all welcome to the forum.

    That comment 'one step higher' does not make any sense.

    This seem essentially correct to me.

    Dark matter is the theorized mass that is not seen. Dark energy has nothing to do with galactic rotation or as a solution to the 'missing mass'.

    That is nice but more than an opinion is going to be required.
    No, that is not true. Depending where they are in their orbit they would usually have a speed higher or lower than 230 Km/sec. Besides if they were all going at 230Km/sec in one direction then they wouldn't orbit at they same speed; they wouldn't orbit at all!
    No it wouldn't what makes you think it would?

    That makes no sense. The way the arms of a spiral galaxy are laid out you can see the effect of the velocities. That is like saying we should see the moons of jupiter orbiting at the same speed because the system orbits the sun. This just makes no sense. Sorry.....

    No need to worry about any of that since the intial conjecture is wrong. Don't forget dark energy has nothing to do with the 'missing mass' in the galaxies!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Thanks, Origin,

    The above paper has been extracted from a paper wherein I had proposed the Universal Pivot Point theory, which describes the orbital motion of Galaxies also around the Universal Pivot Point. This theory questions the validity of all the four monsters, that is Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

    Hence the words Dark Energy and Dark Matter got used in this post as synonyms. I have corrected the main body of the post, in the title also the Dark Energy is to be read as Dark Matter.

    Sincerely thanks 'Origin' for drawing attention to this.
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Moons of the Jupiter are all orbiting the Jupiter as per different orbital speed determined by the Kepler's law, but all these moons along with Jupiter are also orbiting around the Sun at an almost constant speed. So if I were to make a plot with respect to this orbital speed around the Sun Vs the distance of Moons from the Jupiter, it will be a near flat curve.

    This is what I call misplacing of data, this is what possibly happening with the Galaxy Speed Distribution Curve. If we consider an intermediate super solar system, then all the stars of this super solar system are orbiting around the Super Star (System) center with different speeds, but all these stars are moving at a constant speed with respect to one step higher Center (that may be the Galactic Center or higher order Super Solar System).

    The conclusion is very clear either we have intermediate super solar systems, or the entire Galaxies are orbiting around the center of Universe. Both these can cause misplacing of data, the former is more likely for data mismatch.
  9. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Might be clearer to say galaxy groups/clusters are orbiting the center. Unless I somehow missed a claim that they are not grouped.
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Yes it would, why would anyone do that?

    No it would not be misplacing data it would just be a strange data set to analyze. It is a trivial matter to determine the orbital velocites of the Jupiter.

    There is no possible way that something like that is happening in the measurement of galactic rotation. If I wanted to see the orbital velocites of the moons of Jupiter, I would look at the data relative to Jupiter. I would not look at each of the moons relative to the sun - that would be absurd.
    When we look at the orbital velocites of the stars in the galaxy it is relative to the galactic center not some other center of mass that the galaxy is moving relative to. Do you think the scientist that study this are morons?

    What is clear is that you do not understand how the velocites are measured and so you have come up with an absurd assumption on how you think the velocities are measured. By the way there is no center to the universe.

    Look at this and notice that the rotation is calculated relative to the galactic center which completely negates your conjecture.

    In science when the evidence shows that our ideas or hypothesis are false we form new hypothesis building on the earlier failure. In pseudoscience evidence that conflicts with our ideas is dismissed, ignored or distorted so that the idea need not be abandoned.
  11. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    The link you provided is fine and the first source of information, it says that the rotation speed is around the GC and a plot is made between this speed and the distance from the GC.

    I respectfully wish to differ, with respect to this aspect of the observation that the rotation speed measured / observed / calculated is with respect to GC...there is something amiss, like what you rightly say "the strange data" to analyze.

    This problem can come when we miss that Galaxies are not orbiting around some other center, which of course we have due to Big Bang, or this could even happen which is more likely, that these stars are orbiting around some Super star (Super Solar System), which in turn is orbiting around GC.

    Take for example the orbital speed of moon in its orbit around Earth is 2300 miles per hour and the orbital speed of Earth Moon system with respect to Sun (higher step center) is around 67000 MPH. The resultant spatial speed of moon would be approximately 67000 MPH only. Now imagine another moon of earth farther from the present moon, this will have an orbital speed around Earth less than 2300 MPH, and a kepler's curve would come if we were to plot between these speeds around Earth and distance from the Earth.

    But the point is both these moons are having a same speed of around 67000 mph around a higher level center (sun), so a plot of this speed with respect to distance from earth will be "Strange data" to analyze.

    My question is how can we say that this has not happened in the Galaxy Speed Distribution Curve ? I do not have access to data but can any one say that it was 67000 MPH which was measured (for example Counter part at that level) not the 2300 MPH ? I am sorry, this is not sufficient to say that "are those scientists moron ? No they are not, they are as human as we are, and to err is to human. It just calls for a re look.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    How many of our state of the art probes do you have access to for your information?
    And you think these scenarios have not been looked at again and again, and again?
    To err is certainly human. And it appears being human, you have erred.
    But if you are confident you have not erred, and all the other giants of the present and past have erred, then present your findings and get it peer reviewed.
    Claiming mainstream science is wrong on these types of forums is rather common place.
    They are afterall, open to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    The question is whether you understand how those speed measurements are made. Think about it for a minute. How would you measure the speed of a star from a telescope in your backyard?

    Do you know what a coordinate transformation is? Let's consider two coordinate systems: the Earth centered system and the one centered about Mars. Using the same science and the same principles of math origin is referring to, NASA was able to land its Rovers within about a football field of the target staging area. What does that tell you about the reliability of coordinate transformations and the overall methodology used by astronomers and physicists? Whenever you think something is amiss in science as basic as this you should first ask yourself what is wrong with your understanding of the problem. From what I've read so far it sounds like you have never solved any problems involving coordinate transformations. So why are you assuming that the science is flawed?

    There is no such center of the universe. And motion of the galaxy has no effect on this problem. This simply illustrates that you do not understand coordinate transformations. Here you are merely confronting the problem of performing successive coordinate transformations beginning with telescope coordinates then earth-moon centered coordinates then Sun centered coordinates and finally galactic centered coordinates.
    How about take the more obvious case. Consider binary stars within our galaxy. They may be observed eclipsing one another. What is the issue? Astronomers can tell you their orbital speed about their center of mass and they can tell you about their orbital speed about the GC. They are two different reference systems. Just consider how silly it is to assume that they have ignored that the binary system has its own center of mass. After all the astronomers you are suspicious of are the ones who told you that the binary system has its own center of mass!

    By Kepler's curve you mean an elliptical orbit. Kepler was analyzing the data taken by Tycho Brahe. Here it needs special treatment since the Earth-Moon system has a center of mass which is not at the center of the Earth. Remember what I said: be more skeptical of your own assumptions and your tendency to make errors. For this case it would make much more sense to speak of a planet which has multiple moons. That way you can be sure that you're not relying on false assumptions.

    How about if you restate that question in terms of Jupiter. Astronomers can tell you the orbital velocity of those moons and they can tell you the orbital velocity of Jupiter. They can also tell you how to plot the velocity of those moons with respect to the Sun. There simply is no issue here.

    It looks like you misunderstood what origin meant by strange data. He noticed that you were confusing coordinate systems. That confusion is the only thing that makes the data strange. There's nothing strange about the data since it all followers Kepler's laws, or to be more precise, Newton's universal law of gravitation. Origin was telling you that your way of thinking outside of coordinate systems would certainly make the data strange. If you want to understand what he was talking about you might want to explore the system of epicycles used to explain planetary motion during the geocentric era. This is what we mean by strange data. It's simply an error resulting from confusion over coordinate systems.

    Here you do not seem to understand the concept of scale. Nor do you seem to understand precision. And I'm pretty sure you don't know what a coordinate transformation is. That means you have a tall hill to climb to get over this question. But let's go back to Kepler's laws. We quickly realize that all of the planets follow elliptical orbits. But wait: do they really? After all the center of the Earth is not the center of the Earth Moon system. Therefore the earth is actually tracing out a ripple (epicycle) about the elliptical orbit that Kepler predicted. The question is: what difference does it make? And the answer is it would matter if you're trying to put a rover on Mars. Otherwise it probably doesn't matter at all. So as you see if an astronomer wants to be correct then they have to take into account all of the applicable coordinate transformations. Do not assume that they are not experts in this question. That's a very naive assumption.

    At this point all of the errors belong to you. Also note the the speed of the Earth-Moon system is not constant. Kepler's laws explain this.

    You might want to calibrate your ideas against this information:

  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    paddoboy, Aqueous Id, origin

    Mostly the objection is that someone has come with no understanding of any mathematics or Physics, and started questioning the wisdom of our scientists.

    It is not the fact, neither I am ignorant nor I am questioning the wisdom of our scientists.

    There are three ways of seeing the data pertaining to this curve..

    1. This is the mis-placing of data as explained in my post.
    2. Big Bang Theory calls for a re-visit. (Need for Super Solar System and/or Center of Universe)
    3. Dark Matter or MOND is required to explain this data.

    Had the Dark Matter Concept was easier to digest (or detectable) or MOND was not violating momentum etc, then yes it was fantastic.

    Otherwise I feel, that Pt#1 and Pt#2 must get conclusively rebuffed, before we venture out in dark to find the dark matter.
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    As explained to you that is definitely not the case. The velocities of the galaxies are measured relative to the galactic centers and not some point outside of the galaxies.

    All evidence clearly indicates that there is no center to the universe. I have no idea what your Super Solar System is suppose to be but if you look at the distribution of galaxies in the universe you will clearly see there is no rotation around a center of gravity.

    This is the best candidate to explain the movement of the galaxies. Evidence continues to accumulate that there truly is dark matter.
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    For example take two visible stars (not binary) whose orbital speeds around GC are mapped in the distribution curve with respect to the radial distance from GC.

    The question is has it been ruled out that these two stars are not orbiting around a Super Sun, before this entire system orbiting around GC?

    If this Super Sun is present, then speed of these two visible stars around GC will be almost same, thus giving the present curve.

    [I am not being adamant, I am just seeking a simple clarification]
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    So these would be a trinary system or the stars are part of a star cluster and they area orbiting the star clusters CG.

    Look, if I measure the orbital velocities of the moons of jupiter, it does not matter that the system is orbiting the sun or that the solar system is orbiting the glactic center or that the galaxy is moving towards the virgo super cluster.

    I can guarantee you that the 2 stars in question have other motions but since you are looking at those in isolation the other velocites are irrelevant, as Aqueous ID pointed out is it all depends on the coordinate system you choose.

    Edit to add:

    Only if you took the Super Sun (whatever that is) as the center of rotation, which you would not do to answer the intial question! How many different ways do you want this to be stated?

    Here is an interesting picture, according to your [flawed] idea the color should be the same!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  18. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it has been ruled out as having any effect on the measured orbital speeds with respect to the orbital center. The way that the orbital velocities of these stars are measured automatically compensates for any motion the galaxy itself might have.

    Here's how you measure the orbital speeds at various distances from the GC. First you look at the stars on one side of the galaxy. We take a Doppler reading of the stars at different distances from the GC, and get their velocities away from or towards us. This in itself does not tell us what the orbital velocities are, because the galaxy itself might be moving away from or towards us.

    So then we measure speeds of the stars on the opposite side of the galaxy at the same distance from the GC. These velocities will also include that of the galaxy itself.

    Let's call the velocity of the galaxy vG and the measured velocity for the stars on one side of the galaxy v1 and the measured velocity for the other side at the same radial distance v2. We'll also call the orbital velocites around the center of the galaxy vGC1 and vGC2.

    To find vGC we separate out vG from v2 and v1. Thus vGC1 = v1-vG and vGC2= v2-vG. We still don't know yet what vGC is, but that's okay. Since vGC1 and vGC2 are from opposite sides of the galaxy, they are in opposite direction from each other. (if vGC1 is from the "right" side of the galaxy and is away from us, then vGC2 from the left side is towards us. So really to get the orbital speed at the radial distance from the GC, we just need to take the difference between vGC1 and vGC2 and divide this in half. From above, the difference works out to

    v1-vG -(v2-vG)
    v1-vG -v2+vG
    The vGs cancel. leaving

    and half of that is (v1-v2)/2.

    In other words, by taking the difference between the measurements from both sides of the galaxy, we can get the orbital velocity with respect to the center of the galaxy without have to know the galaxy's motion with respect to anything else, because it has no effect on the answer.

    Scientists know that the movement of the galaxy will affect measurements, so they use a measurement method that automatically takes this into account. To repeat what someone has already said, Scientists are not morons. They are not going to miss something as obvious as the galaxies motion as a whole.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Nice post and well explained in detail.
    As I said early on in the thread, I believe this should be in alternative hypothesis section.
    And it also sounds very much similar to what sscully was claiming in relation to the Sun having a 22 year orbit about some unseen CoM in the "Solar Cycle cause" thread.
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Thanks all for the pains taken in reading. But it appears that main point is still missed.

    My point is:

    Can anyone dispute that the orbital speeds of the moons (of Jupiter) will be approximately same around the Sun for all the moons of Jupiter? (These can be termed as Vs(1) to Vs(63)).

    Similarly we cannot dispute that the orbital speeds of the moons (of Jupiter) will be as per Kepler law around the Jupiter.

    Now if the radial distances of these moons from the Jupiter is Rj(1) to Rj(63), and radial distances of these moons from Sun is Rs(1) to Rs(63). Then what

    [Rs(1) to Rs(63) will be quite clustered].

    1 A Plot between Vj(i) and Rj(i) will be just as per Kepler theory. Speed reduction as Rj(i) increases.

    2. A Plot between Vs(i) and Rj(i) will be constant type.

    3. A Plot between Vs(i) and Rs(i) will also be constant.

    I hope now it can be figured out, if we imagine all the stars as Moons of Jupiter, Sun as GC and the Jupiter as that missing Super Sun (bigger Center of mass). This is the first condition : Super Solar System

    Second condition : Presence of Center of Universe

    Imagine that the Sun is not there, and the orbital speeds of all the moons of Jupiter around Sun is taken as the Hubble expansion, in that case how can Vj be calculated precisely?? (Again here you must consider the Moons as stars, Jupiter as GC and the Sun as Center of Universe). I admit in this case entire Galaxy is orbiting around the Center of Universe, but nonetheless angular motion cannot be neglected due to vast radial distance. In fact in present theory it is taken as almost linear (expanding away) not orbital as suggested by me, so measurement may be fine but subsequent transformations bound to give erroneous answers.

    Either of the two conditions or even both can give the type of plot we are having.
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    This is just pseudoscience and should no longer be in the science section of the forum IMO. The reason that your conjecture is baseless has been explained to you by various posters and yet you refuse to accept it. You have an idea (which is wrong) and refuse to hear anything that does not support it. Too bad, you can't learn anything that way.
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I fully agree, as suggested by Paddoboy earlier, it should not have been here but in Alternative Theory, but that cannot be undone now. I can only apologize for this.

    Almost all the responses were orbiting around "scientists are not morons". I fully agree they are not, but then no one said that they cannot make mistakes !!

    Thanks anyway, I am not in hurry.
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Has anyone ever seen dark matter or dark energy in the lab to make sure these are real thing and not just a new big foot in space?

    If I replace the terms dark matter and dark energy, with unicorn dander and leprechaun breath, the same distant observations in the universe could be correlated to these magic variables, while also not being able to be seen close up in the lab. Unicorn danger is very hard to see in the lab and needs a larger collider or future technology. However, since the impact of unicorn dander and leprechaun breath can be see within observations of the large scale structures of the universe this proves both unicorns and leprechauns exists.

    At least RajeshTrivedi is trying to stay in touch with the philosophy of science, by using a variable one can prove in the lab. If we go to the lab with three teams, one has to show us dark energy/matter is real, another leprechaun and unicorn stuff are real, and the third has to show us how layers of motion can impact final movement, only the last will have lab proof. Yet lab proof is called speculation, and lack of lab proof is the state of the art.

    I call this state of the art one-legged science, with one leg appearing to explain observations, while the other leg is up in the air, not anchored in reality by lab observations.

Share This Page