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

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

  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    No, the difference is you haven't actually predicted anything precise, so you have nothing but an untestable supposition. It's completely disingenious of you to say things like the following :

    That's complete nonsense. Dark matter models can qualitatively explain observations AND quantitatively predict things like alterations to galaxy rotation rates, small scale variations in the CMB and the Bullet cluster. They make quantitative predictions, so they can be put to the test.

    If you think your vague arm waving is on the same level as dark matter models you're, frankly, delusional. Or at the very least extremely poorly informed about anything in mainstream cosmology.

    Actually I wouldn't even put your 'claims' on the level of an hypothesise, not in the scientific sense. An hypothesis can be quantitatively test. Dark matter hypotheses allow models to be constructed, they are developed and partly motivated by quantitative formalisms and the resultant logical development. You have essentially a random guess based on absolutely no quantitative motivation, no access to data, no understanding of mainstream models, their pros and cons and only a small amount of reading of pop science websites and perhaps books.

    You mention redshift values. Do you have in your possession a catalogue of redshift observed values and the source properties? If so (which I very very much doubt) what analysis have you done of them?

    'Perfectly justified'? You're mistaking 'minor qualitative motivation' for 'perfect justification'. You don't have anything quantitative so it's obviously not perfect.

    So you do have in your possession actual telescope observations or compiled cosmology data? And how do you have data before the people actually running observatories and telescopes? Have you put your own telescope into orbit or something?

    Or are you just being fast and loose with your descriptions?

    Your attitude here is the same as when on PhysForums you tried to start some collaborative effort to develop a theory of everything, as if all that was needed was just a few lay persons putting their ignorant heads together, as if collaborations didn't exist in the research community. You have an utterly unrealistic view of your own musings or abilities compared to anything remotely scientific.
     
  2. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800


    Hi origin. :)

    Mate, you can't have it both ways. Either the DM is separated from normal matter aggregations on the large scale, or it is not. The latest astronomical discoveries indicate that it does (as you have just agreed).

    Now it is YOUR TURN to support the implication in your 'question/assertion'....

    Since the forces were great enough to separate DM from the normal matter aggregations, what forces do you think would make them coalesce again?....and over what time frames would that occur?

    I am most interested in finding out whether that would or would not occur, so your factual justification for making such an implication/assertion is of great importance to the further discussion of this OP. Thanks.

    .
     
  3. origin It keeps getting funnier.... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    This may be hard for you to understand mate, but the indications that there has been a separation of dark matter during galactic collisions does not prove your assertion that dark matter leaks from galaxies over time. Get it mate?

    I have to support my questions, really mate? Ok, I swear I do not know the answer and that is why it was a question. Is that acceptable mate?

    Question 1: Gravity, mate. Question 2: Got me, mate.

    I don't know mate, it was a question. A questions is an inquiry, mate, which to most people would indicate that the answer is not known to the questioner.

    Your ideas are still pseudoscience, mate.;)
     
  4. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800


    Thank you for your interest and response, rpenner. :)

    Taking your points in turn:

    CMB: Just hypothesizing based on OP premise: If the neutrinos/antineutrinos have over the aons been constructively interfering to produce WIMPS and HIGGS and such like more massive 'dark' particles which occupy the cosmological intergalactic/intercluster space, then perhaps some 'electro-weak' or other 'dark weak' interactions between photons and these 'dark' particles will tend to produce the CMB wavelengths. Moreover, if the original photons left far-distant galaxies/sources/clusters when the dark matter content was higher 'everywhere' THEN than it is NOW 'everywhere', the CMB would merely be just another example of the redshift 'mismatch' which will be observed because the original photons were not equally BLUEshifted when falling into our (weaker gravity because of DM loss since emission from far distant source). Hence any such mismatch would make photons which are already low frequency/wavelength at emission become even more 'seemingly redshifted' to Microwave spectrum; just as tose photons which left far distant sources (under much higher gravity well strengths due to the then higher DM content) would be also 'seemingly redshifted' likewise to their respective spectrum.

    the primordial elemental abundances; the Population I, II, and III stars: The same evolutionary/recycling processes which the astronomical discoveries (not excluding the latest I referenced) point to the high probability that active galactic nuclei can deconstruct material via there violent high-energy processes and jets of material will contain the more basic Hydrogen ions and Helium ions, as well as all the previously associated Electrons and intermediate product particles. So it is not unreasonable to suggest that much of the elemental abundance proportions we observe are the product of continual recycling in such manner. Also the evolutionary eposchs will naturally produce a range of 'ages' and 'metallicity' etc etc falling into the ranges of Pop I, II & III stars/aggregations. It is also interesting to speculate whether any DARK MATTER caught up in the maelstroms/jets may also be affected in some way (either 'weakly' or more 'strongly'?) by being caught up in these high-energy events/processes (initially 'innocent bystanders' dragged into the event space by the gravity effect only)?


    the apparent recession of galaxies: The answer to that is already contained in the OP/Hypothesis and implications/interpretations provided for discussion. Namely: If the DM content and hence gravity well strengths were greater then than they are now (for all galaxies/clusters over time), then the mismatch in 'time' between source photons from stronger gravity wells and same photons detected now in our weaker gravity well would result in the UNCOMPENSATED FOR 'redshift' values which we measure now here because the weaker gravity here did not 'shift back towards blue' with equal strength, so naturally we have the values observed but not properly allowing for any potential mismatch in gravity well strength due to DM changes over time since source. Hence 'recession' of those galaxy/sources based on 'redshift values' will naturally SEEM to be occurring IF one assumes that no other factor is at play (like that in my OP/hypothesis?). That is the whole point of this thread: 'apparent' recession....or 'real' recession? That is the question raised here. :)

    CMB anisotropy which are all consistent with a finite age of the universe, GR and a particular and detailed big bang cosmology model:[/b] This is interesting. I have seen the argument of CMB 'isotropy' used as an argument FOR the big bang scenario, but now you use the OPPOSITE argument of 'ANisotropy' as an argument for that same big bang scenario! So which is it to be?....anisotropy or isotropy of CMB for big bang support? People can't have it both ways.[/b] Anyhow, if the intergalactic spaces are full of DM (in its various manifestations/interactiveness etc), then the same problem arises: What is 'real' and what is 'apparent'? Only the full understanding of what is IN those spaces will rule things in or out once for all. Until that happens, it's still a valid area of hypothesizing/questioning/exploring.

    all consistent with a finite age of the universe, GR and a particular and detailed big bang cosmology mode: As I have just answered your other points, it is now obvious that these assumptions are precisely the assumptions being explored by the OP/hypothesis and the interpretations/implications which the astronomical data bring to the further examination of these very assumptions you presented. If they turn out to be unfounded because of these latest astronomical discoveries which may put a different take on all the 'evidence' for these assumptions, then let's have a good look again at those assumptions. That is what science does; no exceptions, nothing is sacrosanct.

    Now as for these parts of your same post....

    You seem to be under some kind of misapprehension there, mate. I have hypothesized DARK MATTER 'mass loss' ONLY from the galaxies/clusters TO INTERGALACTIC/INTER-CLUSTER SPACE. At no stage do I ever contend that the 'universe' has lost any sort of mass 'overall' that would invoke all that you state. Please re-read the OP etc carefully and you will see what is actually being discussed. Thanks.

    And this part...

    So you agree that intergalactic space contents can affect photons? Thanks. The only thing left is for the present discussion to eliminate an analogous (weaker?) effect from Dark Matter contents in intergalactic space over long cosmological distances. Then we will know what to make of all the detected wavelengths/frequencies of those photons across the spectrum. That is what the present OP etc is designed to discuss given the new astronomical discoveries re Dark Matter and evolutionary processes over cosmic scales/distances/epochs.

    Thanks rpenner (not least for suppressing your meaner/unscientific urges and so not making whatever "[[very mean analogy barely suppressed here]]" you had in mind! Kudos to you for that gentlemanly/scientistworthy self-restraint; much appreciated! :)

    Cheers!

    .

    PS: And if the Dark Matter has been sent to intergalactic space, then the surrounding 'halo' would act to further 'redshift' the photons originating in the galaxy's stars, so not all the redshift has to happen while climbing out of the galaxy gravity well per se, it can also be added to by the further transit/climb out of the encompassing halo/gravity of DM which has come to fill that intergalactic space over time as the interactions/evolutions astronomically observed proceed as hypothesized based on those observations. Cheers.
    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2012
  5. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    The 'leak' motif is your own construction, mate. I clearly hypothesized dramatic evolutionary processes such as the ones observed. It is those that will dtermine what DM gos where. I at no stage suggested 'leakage' such as you imply. Thanks.

    So you don't know, but are quite prepared to make assertions based on that admitted unknowing? Isn't that what you always chide others for, mate? :)

    And if gravity could not prevent those dramatic separations during such events, what makes you think that the gravity would stop the ongoing momentum/trajectory of that DM once it left the immediate neighbourhood of the ordinary matter aggregations it was previously gravitationally-only associated with but nevertheless was 'stripped away' from as observed? Any facts to support your assumptions there?

    And your question-assertion combo made it quite clear what you were implying. You were implying that my hypothesis was wrong based on some nebulous views of your own which under examinaton have turned out to be mere opinions on your part because you admit you don't know. So have you any knowledge/data to add to the discussion? :)

    Cheers!

    .
     
  6. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi AlphaNumeric. :)

    Thanks for your post, mate.

    Please read my above post in reply to rpenner's. I think the answers provided therein cover all the salient points and reference to same may help to forestall explanatory duplication.

    Thanks again.

    Cheers!

    .
     
  7. origin It keeps getting funnier.... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    My mistake, mate.:)

    So what is your hypothesis? Are you saying the most reshifted galaxies have had the fewest collisions with other galaxies. So galaxies that have had many collisions have a very low redshift. As far as blueshifted galaxies... well what about the blueshifted galaxies, how do they fit in?
     
  8. origin It keeps getting funnier.... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    Mate, this is probably the most hilarious response you could possibly make to someone accusing you of hand waving.

    If I didn't know better, mate, I would assume that you were joking.:)
     
  9. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Hi origin.

    No sweat. Although it would help enormously if people intending to discuss an unusual OP/Hypothesis etc would be EXTRA careful not to bring their own 'readings' into it, as it may start exchanges/posts from others based on misunderstandings that can so easily be avoided, leaving time and energy for the actual points to be discussed more clearly. Thanks.

    I am hypothesizing that if the DM content in (all, including our own) galaxies has diminished/lost since the initial emissions from far distant sources, then any greater redshift of light from the then grater gravity well would not now here be counteracted (blueshifted back) to the original, and hence the 'mismatch' between the gravity wells over time between source-then and detector-now would naturally be 'interpreted' as 'recession' given the amount of 'uncountered redshift'. The values obtained may be different if we knew for sure that the gravity well strength of the source galaxy was greater than it seems from 'here', and the mismatch allowed for in the final 'values' tables for the sources observed. So, if the gravity then was greater, then any 'redshift data' used as a basis for 'recession' hypothesis must be more carefully explored for all possibilities/interpretations, including those possibilities/interpretations mentioned in this OP/thread. That's all I am pointing out based on the astronomical observations to date regarding the mobility of dark matter and its possible variations/evolutions in space and in kind over cosmological epochs/interactions. No more, no less. Just discussion of that posibility etc by anyone interested.

    How do you mean?

    I just hypothesizing About what DM can do 'out there' over cosmological eons and spaces. Its all up for grabs if no-one can say YET for sure either way. Interactions with self/other particles/waves not readily observed in lab conditions may occur over such time/space extents. Have you any further info that would specifically exclude any part/possibility of DM (OP and further hypotheses/conjectures as described) behaviour in such cosmological conditions/ages as are involved here?

    I would be greatly interested for any hard facts/evidence to the contrary, mate! No, really! Have you any to present for discussion that hasn't already been covered in my answers to rpenner etc?

    Gotta go again (such is life). Cheers, mate! :)

    .
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,659
    RealityCheck, what is your evidence that such DM separation has anything to do with age? Is there any evidence of such separation apart from colliding galactic clusters? Any at all?
     
  11. origin It keeps getting funnier.... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    That is your problem. You are not doing a good job of explaining yourself. The problem could be that all of your hand waving is distracting.:)

    I agree with bolded part this is just chatter there is no hypothesis here.

    Again with the jokes mate? Let me help;

    You presented a hand waving conjecture.
    rpenner said you are juist giving a hand waving conjecture.
    You reply was just you wave your hands faster and talk even more nonsense.

    I happen to find that rather funny, mate.

    I think your response to rpenner says pretty much all that needs to be said.:rolleyes:

    I don't know what it is exactly but I find your demeanor incredibly annoying, so I think I am done here because I have a strong desire to say things that could get me banned. Cheers.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    You say you're greatly interested in details but you yourself don't put forth anything but arm waving. In another thread you tried to present yourself as having read a lot of 'the literature' but you haven't read any papers or textbooks, since you lack the knowledge to be able to understand them.

    The points I made in my last post stand, you haven't addressed them. If you think the way you're doing things is anywhere close to the same level of viability as mainstream researchers' work then you are delusional.
     
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,659
    What the hell does "equally counteracting 'blueshift'" mean? Don't you think we know the blueshift induced by our own local gravity well and account for that? Where is there ANY need to assume redshift and blueshift are "matched"?
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,659
    No answers to my above five questions? Pity.
     
  15. deragoku Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    If not strictly, will be released on a physics forum.(Free here, I am glad this folder, to allow more latitude and the need to support the reference. É...
     
  16. elementalist Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    I took the time to post a relevant, if not controversial, POV on the red shift phenomenon. Whoever is responsible for reviewing and posting found it that distasteful that it didn't get posted in the thread. What are the reasons that a thread may not be posted? These may come across as a bit facetious, but I can assure you, I am serious. Could it be the reviewing admin didn't like your idea? Is that all that it might take? Could it be that someone else made a judgment about it and it was removed? I don't quite understand the reason my comments were not posted. Can anyone answer that please? Thanks.
     
  17. elementalist Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    I guess you know how Galileo felt.
     
  18. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hey guys, how about this latest news item:

    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-powerful-jets-material-galaxy-limits.html

    If all galaxies were much more massive earlier on in their evolution, then such loss over huge time scales would mean that we are observing the youngest (ie furthest) galaxies as they were then, and so way more massive than what we see around us locally here now with older galaxies which have lost most of their early mass?

    If so, it follows that the light leaving the younger/further massive galaxies would be redshifted more greatly than we previously assumed based on the assumed galactic masses of the 'older and leaner' local galaxies we observe around us whose evolution is much further along the "mass loss" process compared to the images we receive of the younger/further much more massive galaxies.

    So the younger and hence further galaxies may not be 'receding' as much as the redshift values detected here and now would indicate using the redshift-distance/recession relation assumptions currently used?

    If our milky way and other older/closer local group galaxies are 'lightweights' in comparison to what they and all younger/further galaxies were before they lost all that mass over the billions of years since in the way described in the above article, then maybe RealityCheck was on the right track after all?

    He did mention that processes existed which could result in great mass loss over eons, and so what we see locally, and base our redshift-distance etc relation assumptions on, may be misleading us into interpreting greater-redshift-with-distance is 'expanding universe' rather than 'aging universe' where the younger/further the observed galaxy, the greater redshift is mainly due to greater mass at the time the light reaching us was emitted from those galaxies?

    Not so 'crank' or non-mainstream observation or OP hypothesis after all by RealityCheck? Pity the discussion was trolled and insulted to death so quickly because the trolls were allowed to stay and the Author was banned and the valid OP, thread and discussion was poisoned because of them?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  19. origin It keeps getting funnier.... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    Well, unfortunately for the clown RealityCheck the larger mass is not even remotely large enough to account for the redshift; his childish conjecture remains DOA. Just to let you know people weren't trolling RealityCheck, they were simply pointing out that he was an ignoramus and had nothing even approaching a rational hypothesis. All he did was a bunch of arm waving/ranting/babbling/slobbering.

    ;)
     
  20. MarkM125 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Undefined, almost everything above is basically incorrect. Redshift has nothing to do with galactic mass. The relevant equation is that 1 + z = a/a₀. That is, the ratio of the current scale factor to the scale factor at a former time determines the redshift z. Redshift is affected only by the changing scale factor, i.e. the expansion of the universe. Really, there is no relationship. Light will redshift in a gravitational field, but that only occurs to any noticeable effect in a strong gravitational field, such as light leaving a black hole. Non-expansion explanations of redshift have essentially all been debunked. See this thorough explanation on the Physics Forum FAQ:

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506994

    The universe is expanding, we've known that for years.

    I don't know why you're defending the OP's post to such levels. It's obviously wrong, just a bunch of, well, nonsense. I wouldn't call what happened "trolling", not at all. Other members just pointed out why it was wrong.
     

Share This Page