Dark Energy – Required to explain a plausible mistake ?

Nope.
Has anyone seen a binary star system in the lab?
Has anyone seen a supernova in the lab?
Has anyone seen a neutron star in the lab?
Has anyone seen a sunspot in the lab?
Has anyone seen a living dinosaur in the lab?
Has anyone seen the expansion of the universe in the lab?

Will wellwisher ever get a clue on how science works?

The answer to all of these questions is no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only a moron would try to measure the rotation of the stars around the galactic center using the virgo cluster as the center point. That would be the same as if I wanted to know how long it would take to drive to a city 1000 km away and I based my speed relative to the orbital speed of the earth around the sun (great it will only take about 33 seconds!) instead of realtive to the surface of the earth. It would be quite simply moronic, far beyond a simple mistake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Origin,

I think more or less you have answered my question.

Please have a re look starting with our Solar System to Milkyway to Local Group to Virgo Super Cluster, in between you would find that there are multiple satellite Galaxies to our Milky Way (center of their orbit our GC or nearby?). If these Galaxies are satellite to our Galaxy, then how can it be ruled out that Milky Way is not satellite to something bigger. Our milky way system is hardly 1 MPS while the entire universe is of the order of 28000 MPS.

Similarly our solar System is hardly 4 light years across, then how can it be ruled out that it is not orbiting around something intermediate before straight away launching itself to a massive journey in a orbit of radius 28000 light years taking a time of the order of 230 million years.

Denial of existence of orbital motion for our Galaxy and denial of presence of intermediate orbital centers, both may lead to present curve. It is known that our entire Galaxy is moving at a speed of 600 km/sec with respect to some extra Galactic reference point, this speed would hardly make any arc even in thousands of years even if we presume our Galaxy closest to any nearest Center (of universe), that does not mean that orbital motion is ruled out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is lots of room for hypotheses in cosmology.

Until you study the science, you pretty much have two choices: trust that the scientists are doing the best they can to produce quality data and draw reasonable conclusions from that data or believe that scientists overlook simple things for no reason.

 

I think it is great that you are thinking of these things. When you get the opportunity you should take some astronomy courses.

Yes there are satellite galaxies that gravitationaly interact with the milky way. The 2 largest the LMC and the SMC and they do affect the movement and shape of the milkyway.

The galaxy is not so much orbiting other galaxies, just graviationaly interacting with them. We are clearly linked to the Andromeda galaxy and will end up hitting it in about 4 billion years. Both the milkyway and andromeda are moving towards the virgo cluster. By the way the milkyway is not 1 MPS across. The distance from the milkway to the andromeda galaxy is way less than 1 MPS.

It probably is.

Don't recall doing that.

I don't recall doing that.

I see no possible way that could be accurate.

The 600 km/sec is relative the CMB.
Why do you keep talking about the center of the universe? There is no center.
Whether a galaxy is orbiting something or not, that in and of itself would not result in the galaxy appearing to have all the stars orbit the center of the galaxy at essentially the same speed!

 

Thats condescending. This approach is not right.

Then we are possibly heading for a disaster, or we would have already ended up in disaster in last around 14 b years. Gravitational interaction between two objects is either pull or orbital motion around a center of mass. Certainly these satellite Galaxies are orbiting around a certain center of mass.

That may be. I think our milky way is roughly 1 MPS across (somewhat lesser around 0.8 MPS)

If it is probable that our solar system is orbiting directly around GC, then this is also probable that it is first orbiting around something else, before the entire system orbits around GC.

If thats what you say then you are acknowledging that both Super Solar Center and a bigger center beyond GC exist. Thats what I am saying.

This is the main point. I have already explained in my earlier post by referring to Jupiter moon system and various plots. I request you to please let me know where I have gone wrong.

CMB is used because that offers excellent reference point as on date, but that does not mean that is is straight radial or haphazard motion. It can be orbital also.

 

I missed your understanding of my point. I am not saying that stars are orbiting the GC at the same speed, (in fact my point is in total contrast) that they would be orbiting the GC as per Kepler law if they are doing it directly to GC, it is just that the curve is between two unrelated variables, which may happen if we consider Super Solar Center or a Center beyond GC. It is like plotting Vj with respect to Rs or plotting Vs with respect to Rj.

Only if this aspect is overruled we must search for Dark matter.

 

Scientists do not overlook simple or hard things for any reason.

When they are confronted with a violating observation or data then it is honorable approach not to jump and question the well entrenched hypothesis, and a new novel explanation is searched to fit into the existing hypo. That is the Dark Matter, because there is a lot of room for hypotheses in cosmology.

It is very difficult for a main stream scientist to question Big Bang or any well established hypothesis, simply because it may not find acceptance in his life time, the burden of proof of alternative theory is too big. I am sure an alternative less onerous explanation will come for this issue sooner or later. Dark matter is literally too onerous.

 

Its feeling like you are going to start listing your discoveries.. Where is a veeg hole when you need one.

 

You are assuming something has been overlooked. From where I sit, you are overlooking the meaning of the data and concluding that the experts are wrong. Origin showed you a nebula in rotation about the transverse axis. That's physical evidence about actual motion which simply can't be ignored, just to support the idea that the experts "might be wrong". The fact is, they are the ones producing nearly all of the data! And consider the detail Janus58 described. How do you think people come up with such analysis methods. By overlooking something? That doesn't make any sense.

That being said, I think you have missed what I said about errors of scale. If 99.999% of the velocity vector of an object is normal to the radial directed from the center of the Milky Way, then does it really matter that this number is the one used in the plot you are objecting to? Why are you worrying about negligible quantities?

You keep referring to Kepler's Laws, and then expressing concern over whether Newton's Laws (esp. superposition) are being "correctly treated by the experts". That's very fundamental stuff - they covered it in high school and in Freshman physics. Experts don't mistake fundamentals. Otherwise no one would call them experts. As it stands, the facts propounded by experts is usually treated as true until proven false. You don't assume your doctor doesn't know how to make basic measurements in a physical exam do you? Or do you come home from your checkup convinced that he could have been wrong measuring your blood pressure, and therefore this needs to be studied more carefully? I'm having a hard time figuring out why you are attacking something as esoteric as "determination of the speed of the Milky Way stars", which can only be assigned to competent experts, as something that falls into the "wait this might be wrong" category. So why are you even raising this question? And why does it bother you that the main velocity component of most stars is measured/calculated with respect to the center of the galaxy? Why do you assume other massive objects are present outside the center, and why do you assume such influences, when present, aren't quickly seen by experts? You seem more interested in discrediting them than in trying to understand the data itself. But why?

What well entrenched hypothesis? That the Milky Way must work like any other spiral galaxy observed rotating about a central axis, such as the object Origin provided, which, with color enhancement to show relative velocities of the constituent bodies (in this case vast amounts of Hydrogen) is plainly rotating? The problem with this line of attack is that it tells the experts to ignore the data they labored to produce. That's nuts.

No, in fact that's almost criminal thinking. You seem now to think experts are corrupt if not extremely naive. Before anyone had any idea about the possibility of dark matter, they had a pretty good understanding about how to detect the rotation in galaxies. You seem now to be so interested in arguing against dark matter that you are proposing that all evidence of rotation should be discarded. Why is that? And how absurd is that?

It's theory, meaning an explanation. It began as the explanation of Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. You seem to want to throw that information away. Why? And why would any qualified expert ever decide to argue against the Big Bang? What would motivate such a move? What makes you think any of them want to throw out Hubble's discovery, esp. now that it's been repeatedly corroborated? And what about all the subsequent evidence of the Big Bang, such as the now detailed studies of the cosmic microwave background? These are not "well established hypotheses". They are hard evidence. And anyone who wants to argue against it needs to merely come up with some other plausible explanation. But no competent person in their right mind is going to bury evidence or propound a theory that deliberately ignores the evidence. That's casting scientists at large as psychopaths. It's ridiculous.

You aren't addressing alternative theory. You are addressing criminal minds. Alternative theory doesn't ignore evidence. You are asking experts to ignore evidence, which simply isn't going to happen.

Huh? :bugeye: You mean like inventing artificial Super Suns which the evidence tells you are not present?

What in the world are you talking about? And what snuck up and bit you in your sleep that makes you so cynical? So far all you've done is to trash scholarship, make stuff up, and complain about nonexistent objects (Super Suns). Why not simply inquire into the subject matter rather than dumping all of your venom here? You obviously have very little exposure to academic training in these matters. Why assume that stuff you've barely understood has been screwed up by experts? And what in the world makes you think there is something wrong with dark matter?

We don't make stuff up. Developing plausible theory involves careful deliberated treatment of best evidence otherwise no expert bothers to waste their time with it.

You haven't explained your bias against science and academia, your loathing of dark matter :bugeye:, and what makes you a cynic. So what is really going on?

 

I have noticed sscully has been rather quite of late, with his near identical unsupported proposals.
Or maybe I'm just being over cynical?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is incorrect. Leave aside my proposal for time being.

The accepted orbital speed of stars is 230 km / sec around GC, while the accepted speed of our entire Galaxy is around 600 Km/Sec in some direction with respect to Extra Galactic Point of reference. So this 99.999% aspect falls flat.

And please mind you, I am not stating that the orbital speed calculated by the scientists around GC is incorrect, what I am suggesting is:

1. If this 600 km/Sec is taken as orbital speed around some higher center, then will our math of calculating the orbital speed around GC remain the same? Keeping in view the angle and variation in angular speed (due to vast distances) involved between these two motions.

2. If a super center is present between GC and the stars, then will the present curve make any sense?


So I have hypothesized either the presence of orbital motion of Galaxy around some bigger center or/and presence of one or multiple super suns (or systems) between GC and the stars.


And please do not read anything other then stated, my stand is very simple, let us have a re look, because Dark Matter is not a simple Black and white concept.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

That's impossible.

That's impossible.

That hypothesis fails because it is contradicted by evidence. Thus I said "impossible". I am, however, beginning to understand something. You have no idea how any such plot is constructed. In the rare event that you take an interest in that question, you will be cured of the misunderstanding which permits you to assume that there is another center of rotation.

That's ridiculous. Before you take that one step further, you should state here where you came up with such a nonsensical idea. Did you dream this up, or did it come from reading anti-science propaganda? (I've gotta ask; you're showing some of the same symptoms.)

Sidebar question: is English your native language?

 

Even if whatever I have stated is crap or stupidity, your this line speaks very poorly about your inner character strength to fight logically. You should not resort to such things and expose your inner weakness, the best thing for a knowledgeable person is to keep cool and stay away if confronted with stupidity.

Incidentally all cosmologists or scientists you know (or heard) are the people with English as their native language?? Answer to this question may help you in becoming a better person.

 

The problem is that it is very frustrating when people take the time to explain why a claim is incorrect but the person making the claim appears to ignore the information and clings to this incorrect idea. It has been explained to you several different ways why the orbital velocity of stars around the galactic center is not being incorrectly calculated.

I think the poster is just trying to ascertain if maybe that is why you can not seem to grasp the rather obvious flaws in your claim. Frankly, it is very hard to figure out why you cannot see the flaw.:shrug:

 

Thats very kind of you. But this explains something bigger.

You and Aqueous are active participants in this forum (posts>5000), during this period based on his posts (evidence) you have framed an idea that he is a nice guy, who would not indulge into what I inferred in my response.

That is a perfectly valid impression (nice guy; BIG BANG) based on fairly good evidence (5000+posts; Abundance of Lighter material, Hubble expansion, CMBR etc).

So one day when you encountered this freaky side bar question (Galaxy Rotation Curve Data), you immediately came to the rescue of your impression, and proposed this explanation of my inability to understand English (Dark Matter).

This is very natural to stick to prevalent basic hypothesis or impression, no saner person can attach any criminality or naivete to this, like Aqueous suggested that I am attempting to do so.

Well the question is not about anybody being this way or that way, the question is what could be the other possible explanations for such galaxy Rotation Curve.

I thought what looked right to me (like you explained about Aqueous what you thought looked right to you), I need not have resources to prove that, it is up to those who have the data to see. Both of us or either of us may be completely wrong in our thoughts.

For the sake of record and clarity I wish to put my thoughts once again....There is a possibility that this Galaxy Curve is between two strange variables due to presence of

1. A super sol between star and GC. (This does not violate anything)
2. Orbital motion of our Galaxy around some bigger center. (This violates Big Bang)

 

Uh . . . that was just plain weird. I asked you about your English fluency because I speak several languages and I have taught ESL. I detected variations in your speech that are not consistent with a native English speaker, mixed with patterns (esp slang) generally only used by locals. Nor did I recognize an error that maps into a geographical region I would normally recognize. This surfaced as a meaningful thing to ask you since you are exhibiting other unusual behaviors here which do not make sense either. Speaking of gravity, people tend to gravitate around correlations. I think I've made one, but I'm not sure. So I was giving you the chance to clear this up. I am sure I have asked hundreds of people about their native language and never has anyone bristled and gnashed teeth about it like you do here. That just pushes me closer to the conclusion that I an probably on the right track about something which may come up later.

---

Let me repeat back to you the summary of my reaction to your claims:

(1) The orbital velocities of the stars in the Milky Way are inconsistent with predictions. Rather than sweeping out equal arcs in equal times (constant angular velocities), they are observed orbiting the GC at nearly constant tangential velocities (inconsistent with Kepler's laws). So far so good.

(2) To account for this, experts have proposed the presence of another source of mass which could produce such an effect. This is called dark matter. If it exists, it is neither radiative nor opaque. Since matter known to experts does not exhibit such a quality, the theory further proposes that dark matter must not be baryonic. Instead, it must exist in some other form poorly understood or as yet undiscovered. So far so good.

(3) "But wait! That's preposterous!" you say. (You said "onerous" but we understood you meant "preposterous".) You further explain that these experts must have "made a mistake". They must have "overlooked" the presence of an external source of mass which is not dark matter and therefore visible although for some unknown reason we still can't see it ! You are treating this as an object, such as a giant star of some sort. You are insisting that this object is situated somewhere outside the GC. And our reaction: nonsense. That's impossible.

Our reason for saying this is that there is no way to cause the uniform tangential velocity by placing a wobble in the gravitational field coming out of the galactic core. Additionally, such an object would have to be supermassive, at least another supermassive black hole, and it would be orbited by stars caught it in the proximity of its field. It would cause stars falling between it and GC to orbit them both, and it would cause outlying stars to wobble in their orbits. In other words, your "theory" is contradicted by the data you are trying to explain !! You can't produce uniform tangential velocities this way. It's impossible. The only possible answer (assuming that "other mass" is correct) is that the "other mass" is symmetrically distributed over a vast region which allows this well balanced system to exist. Therefore it has to be dark matter -- unless of course some feasible alternative theory provides a better explanation. That excludes yours !!

Conclusion: until proven otherwise, you should begin to understand that even the most "onerous" of theories, once they are adopted by the majority of experts, have to work their way into your mind, and then you have to confront the next logical question they are pondering: what the hell is dark matter? You can't simply dismiss them as morons (yes, stating that they overlooked the possibility of a supermassive object is the same as calling them morons) since, as I explained, there is a logical process for arriving at the postulate that dark energy exists, and the very first thing they must rule out is your nonsensical "solution" since It's impossible.

So it's onerous (preposterous). Join the club. Every generation faces its share of scientific mysteries; this just happens to be ours. Don't run from the news. Embrace it, confront it and, well, deal with it. But don't invent "criminally onerous" explanations out of thin air, and NEVER ASSUME THE EXPERTS ARE WRONG !!!

 

As I previously said earlier in the thread, what you speculate, sounds very much like what another poster, sscully, was speculating, except he was in the right section.
And secondly, despite what you propose, there is no evidence to support it, and no reason that I have seen, why anyone on this forum, should accept your hypothesis, above the accepted mainstream theory.

 

question @ origin

I accept concensus science on the matter but there is this nagging question about the Singularity from which the universe inflated. While this singularity was of indeterminite size and location it would not be the center of anything, at least until the BB, however;

If, as I understand it, Inflation occurred in all directions outward from the singularity, would that not make it the center of the universe, at one time? I understand that it was the center itself inflating, but there must have been a point of origin. The center of the expanding center.

It has occurred to me that the universe itself is in motion so there may no longer be a "fixed" center. But was there ever a center to this universe?

What am I missing here?

 

So Origin's nice words to cool off the matter were not correct. It was your mindset to mix up your linguistic expertise and somehow correlate the same with others physics' knowledge.

Let me add to this:

Prima facie I would have no objection with this argument, but get into deeper and you would see for yourself.

1. Did you ponder over where this figure of 95%(dark matter) and 5% (observable matter) came from? This highly skewed ratio is required to fit into the calculations approximately. It is like, even the remotest (periphery) star is a part of inner layer of our Galaxy, beyond that the layer is of dark matter.

2. There is no universally acceptable reason for absence of Dark matter anywhere other than beyond the periphery of our Galaxy. Why? Symmetry and similarity would require that even the Dark Matter to be present beyond our Solar System (percentage apart), some kind of Halo over our Solar System.

3. Dark Matter Halo over the periphery, is a very deep, erudite and intelligent way of thinking. But nothing is known about it, it is also proposed that it does not interact with the light, but it is assumed that the light would easily pass through it without any change. The point is: a fraction of 5% of the known matter (Black holes are part of non dark matter : Pl correct me if I am wrong) in the form of Black Hole, can cause deviation in the light, but this 95% halo which can gravitationaly affect the motion of stars as remote as our Sun (or even inner layers) cannot create any gravitational affect in light? It is also not the case that this Halo is uniformly distributed thus making it less dense (we do not even know the density aspect, we do not even know if so called density exists or not).

4. It is just hypothesized that Light will have unobstructed path as if travelling in vacuum, but stars as far as many MPS will be disturbed.

Thats why I said you mix up your subconscious linguistic mind. Onerous here means a very difficult task to find out the Dark Matter, no way it is related with preposterous. By the way what do you mean by "WE UNDERSTOOD", whom are you tagging along in your linguistic journey. I feel it is just to garner some support for your slip.

You missed what I said. Please go back to my detailed explanation, wherein I stated with reference to Jupiter moons, if a plot is drawn with respect to Vs and Rj (Vs = Orbital Speeds of moons with respect to Sun and Rj = Radial distance from Jupiter), then we will get this kind of curve.

Yes it is onerous (very difficult) to prove the existence Dark matter concept, but it is not so onerous to look into data once again.

AND Please NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. Please read the recent new thread by Paddoboy.



At the End:

I am not assuming anything, I am just saying lets look at the data and data source once again, before we invest time and energy hugely in the search of that elusive dark matter.