# Solution to the Galaxy Rotation Problem, without Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Scott Myers, Feb 2, 2013.

1. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Yes, we are not solving for mass by using the (gtd) equation. We are going to use it to correct for time. Then use the factor to correct V. We will use that to redo the Newton M

3. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,158
What you are talking about is is some type of MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. The problem here is the there have been a lot of attempts to come up with a modified theory of gravity to replace DM, and they have all come up short. The problem they have is they can't account for all observations. Not all galaxies are the same types or sizes and you just can't get a single modified gravity theory that can be made to fit them all.

One of the biggest blows to MOND theories is the already mentioned Bullet Cluster.

I'll explain:

With the Bullet cluster we are looking at the aftermath of a collision between two galaxy clusters. Now, during the collision there was interaction between the normal baryonic matter and energy was radiated away, which resulted in the clusters separating at a lesser speed than they came together. DM doesn't interact to the same degree, so you would expect the DM parts of the cluster not to lose as much speed. This would cause the DM to separate away form its parent cluster. Basically, the collision Knocks the DM loose of the cluster.

If the above is true, then we should see two distinct gravitational lensing silhouettes. One caused by the visible part of the cluster, and one caused by the DM that has been "knocked loose". When we examine the Bullet cluster, this is exactly what we see. We see the gravity lensing around the visible parts of the cluster, and offset from it, where there is no visible matter there is a second locus of gravitational lensing, just like we would expect. No MOND theory can explain how gravitational lensing can be knocked loose from the mass causing it unless the theory includes some DM.
It has to do with the way the mass is distributed. The visible baryonic mass is distributed as a central bulge and a thin disk. Once you leave the area of Bulge, the extra mass added inside your orbital sphere by the matter in the disk doesn't amount to much. However DM is spherically distributed. So it is the mass of DM within the entire orbital sphere that effects your orbital velocity and the volume of that sphere grows by the cube of the orbital radius. So what you have is the combination of the gravitational effect of the visible matter of the galaxy which falls off with distance, and the gravitational effect of the DM which increases with distance. the two act in opposition to flatten out the galaxy rotation curve.

5. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
As interesting as the Bullet Cluster is, the most convincing evidence for dark matter probably still comes from cosmological sources. Once one gets beyond the cluster level, one really, really needs a lot of dark matter to account for the available measurements.

A very comprehensive list of MOND literature is here: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/litsub.html

7. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
This is not a Mond proposal.

8. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
My result is not working.

Can anyone get their calculator to finish this? 1*sqrt(1 - (2 * 6.67398*10^11* 7.4717702*10^38 / (4.98664452*10^16 *89875517873681764))))

My result is "471730865.83349824i" What the heck is "i" ?
Can anyone get an answer out of the equation above?

9. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
But so far the time dilation effects look much too weak. So how do we intensify the hidden mass in the galaxy as a whole? Hidden mass hides behind the hidden motion but not-so-hidden gravity! You are going to have to work out how to hide the stuff that causes the effect.

Which is a bit like saying the Dark Matter is hidden in the matter that is in the galaxy, and that is what I had seen near the end of " Proof that Gravitational Constant is not constant" thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?119609-Proof-that-Gravitational-Constant-is-not-constant. The mass was remaining but the gravitation effect "G" between the masses radiating Gravitational Waves was declining at a rate proportional to their increased velocity. Since G is lowered the space between them had been straightened out, that takes energy for it is like paying off the negative potential energy between them. What I did not know at the time is what the ultimate effect of this will have on the ability of the super-massive BH to attract further mass to itself.
I think from what I was working on, a fair conclusion might have shown that ultimately there was a lot more mass in the BH's than the apparent gravitational effects showed.
I feel this could account for the flat rotation curves in galaxies as well.
There becomes the situation where the space between the stars is more curved than between the star and black hole so the material in the galaxy lines up in arms rather than just orbiting the central super-massive BH.

10. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
As I warned you before the brackets must balance!
I'll insert the values into the Macro "Andromeda_time_dilation"

is ' M = 7.4717702*10^38 and
' r = 4.98664452*10^16 ??

Answer: 0.999988873 ..... 31557600...... -351.1276053 seconds lost in a Julian year.

Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
11. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I did not check the brackets, thank you very much

12. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Did you get the same result as I did? Is it enough?

13. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I agree with the findings.

I also solved for the other side of the equation with the exact same results. It is indeed very small if I am interpreting correct. For every second that passes in the fast ticking observer's clock, the slow ticking observer's clock is ticking at 99.9988% the rate of the proper time's clock, correct?

So, on Earth, the time lost is 0.0219 seconds less than a distant observer over a period of one year. In comparison, a clock on the surface of the sun will accumulate around 66.4 seconds less in a year. We have calculated a clock at 5.27 ly from the center of the Black Hole; will accumulate 351.123 seconds less per year. We would add about 12 meters per second to our velocity, which is far more accurate than needs to be accounted for, considering our best observational methods.

The math therefore is far more accurate than our error magnitude in observation.
Nice work fellas, and thanks for anyone who help in the last four weeks.

My initial hypothesis is resolved and is not sufficient to solve the Galaxy Rotation Problem, nor did it find any additional mass using the two equations cited. (actually found a few quatrillion kg, but that could be found anywhere at this scale)

This paper then, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2826.pdf is officially (as far as we can do so on a website) debunked!

14. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715

Поздравляю с решением проблемы вращающейся галактики. Давайте устроим вечеринку))):yay:

15. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
How can you be sure we used the right formula for time dilation in the situation. That paper does not recommend the equation you have been looking at.
I think we need to look at and understand each of the formulas proposed in the paper, before we dismiss it altogether.

16. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
It is a bit early to dismiss it so soon! No party yet!

17. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
That's the first words out of this one? Sheeeeeez!
You must know everything there is to know.

18. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I'd be glad to give that a look, no doubt.

The paper has much to offer, but it will have to convince me of how, or why, the classic Time Dilation Formula is not sufficient. I'll try and dig into the subtleties within the paper, and see what I can come up with.

19. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Oh, and the brackets were improperly copied and pasted when I shared them, but if you review some of my posts, I dropped the -11 power in the Gravitational constant, and used 11th. That was not about to work.

20. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Also look at what Janus58 has offered. It reminds me a bit of the work I did on the HT Binary, you are always adjusting one thing or the other but you never get a true solution
until you look at lowering G close to the Black Hole and you will find there is an exact solution to the mass and orbital velocity. For you can't just increase mass of the black hole for the radius will need to change and then the velocity will change as well.

21. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
The velocity does increase as we get nearer the Black Hole, and there seem to be more observations of higher estimates closer to the Black Hole, but for the first look at GTD the blue stars were sufficient. The last paper I linked to shows some higher velocities, and this would be worth taking a good look at for starters.

Very close to the event horizon our GTD equation would come in quite handy I'm sure, if the higher velocities can actually be observed much closer to there.

Again, it doesn't look like we can correct the curve, but I wouldn't doubt if the estimates of the 140 million solar masses will also increase over time, as we have already seen progressively over time, from paper to paper.

22. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
But you'll find if you calculate a mass that works for stars going x velocity near the black hole stars a little further out will be going to fast. OK then if they increase the mass of the black hole to allow them to orbit at the right speed the ones further in are thrown out by the increased mass. Dark matter would have to appreciate what is happening and just be at the right place at the right time. That in itself makes it dubious as to its existence. If another galaxy passed by and stole another's dark matter would the first galaxy contract under its acquired mass and the other fly apart?

23. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
We apply American phrase ''close, but no cigar'' here, yes? :bawl: