Dubbelosix' spiral arm ATM

[Dubbelosix]

In the following article it is stated:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...4/spirals.html

"What are Spiral Arms?
Spiral Arms are Density Waves that pass through the general disk of stars and gas.
Density Waves are a kind of orbital traffic jam

Orbits crowd together in the arms, stars pile up and make the regions look brighter.
Gas clouds pile up, collide, fragment, and form new stars.
O&B Stars ionize leftover gas (HII Regions), then die before moving far from the waves.
Kalnaj Spiral Schematic
Density Waves
Density waves pass through the disk like water waves pass over the ocean.
Stars move through the spiral arms.
Gas clouds try to move through, but some are induced to form stars (collision or compression)
We are not sure how the waves are excited:

Tidal disturbance from a nearby companion?
Excited by a stellar bar in the central regions?
Both of these have been implicated, and there are strong (but not conclusive) arguments for each. Some computer simulations suggest that spiral structure may be transitory, but given how many disk-shaped galaxies show at least some spiral pattern, it must recur frequently."

1. With regards to spiral arms:
It is stated that: "O&B Stars ionize leftover gas (HII Regions), then die before moving far from the waves."

A. Does it mean that if our Sun will move away from the spiral arm wave it should die?
B. Could it be that our Sun was at some point of time (from its first day) outside the Arm?
C. If it could be outside the arm, why other stars couldn't live outside the arm? Why do we kill them all as they move outside? Why do we claim: "then die before moving far from the waves"?
D. Does it mean that there are no stars between the arms? If there is - would you kindly show just few examples of stars which are located between Orion Arm and the nearby arm? Not a group of stars - but only one star alone between the arms (in the disc).

2. With regards to the density wave:
A. It is stated: "Density Waves are a kind of orbital traffic jam".
However, traffic jam is a random phenomenon. so why we couldn't get different variation of arm shape? Why not stright arm or even be a ZiG Zag arm?
In about 70% of all the galaxies, we see a nice spiral arms. Therefore, don't you think that there must be a key idea in this structure? Could it be that our scientists have missed something?

B. It is also stated that: "we are not sure how the waves are excited: Tidal disturbance from a nearby companion? or Excited by a stellar bar in the central regions?"
If they don't know, could it be that we have a problem with this hypothesis? Why they are not willing to get the real answer for that?

You know, the energy of the black hole in the center of a galaxy like our own, matches the same gravitational binding energy for a typical spiral galaxy like our own. Not only this, but direct relationships between supermassive black hole size has been linked to the recessional velocities of the furthermost galaxies. Dark matter seems to be coming up a blank, so maybe we will need to come back to this. I saw your other post on how gravity plays the role for the acceleration curves of galaxies and I tend to agree with the assertion but haven't had time to read your paper. Rest assured, when a galaxy loses its supermassive black hole, the entire structure of the galaxy tends to fall apart due to the centrifugal forces. This was a conclusion I came to from studying several galaxies, which had lost their supermassive black holes - it was hard to get recessional velocity information, but if gravity plays a role, they should still be there since we now suspect thousands of black holes satellite the supermassive black hole. So there is still some binding energy there, but they helplessly fall apart.

[AGN Fuel]

- You know, the energy of the black hole in the center of a galaxy like our own, matches the same gravitational binding energy for a typical spiral galaxy like our own.
- Not only this, but direct relationships between supermassive black hole size has been linked to the recessional velocities of the furthermost galaxies.
- Rest assured, when a galaxy loses its supermassive black hole, the entire structure of the galaxy tends to fall apart due to the centrifugal forces.
- We now suspect thousands of black holes satellite the supermassive black hole. So there is still some binding energy there, but they helplessly fall apart.

Would you be kind enough to cite some (mainstream) references for these assertions, plus references to indicate those galaxies you describe that had housed an SMBH which had subsequently been lost (and how this determination was made)?

[Dave Lee]

I saw your other post on how gravity plays the role for the acceleration curves of galaxies and I tend to agree with the assertion but haven't had time to read your paper.

Thanks

Do appreciate you support.

[Dubbelosix]

Would you be kind enough to cite some (mainstream) references for these assertions, plus references to indicate those galaxies you describe that had housed an SMBH which had subsequently been lost (and how this determination was made)?

I did a nice study on this and even caught the attention of a physicist I was in close contact with. I hope Dave doesn't mind if I quickly go over this?

I wanted to find evidence of black holes playing a torsional role on the systems inside of a galaxy in such a way that maybe there are relationships which bind the two and can explain galactic rotation curve phenomenon. The article I am about to link to, explained there are such relationships between the orbital speed of the stars on the outer rim and the size of the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies:

http://www.cosmotography.com/images/...olution_2.html (http://www.cosmotography.com/images/...olution_2.html)

I realized this could answer a problem that surfaced in cosmology not long ago: We look back 10 billion years and find that galaxies are behaving like they consist of ordinary matter. The cosmological world went abuzz and asked, ''where did the dark matter go?''

I realized this could be answered if the dark matter phenomenon was somehow linked intrinsically to the black holes at their galactic cores. The black holes would not have been supermassive 4 billion years years after big bang, or approximately 10 billion years ago, when the earliest galaxies were starting to form. And so, it seemed that this was a nice solution then to a weird problem: the reason those dark matter effects for galactic curves were not about, because their galactic core black holes were too small to account for it.

After some investigation, it seems like it may be a candidate to provide evidence of black hole torsional structure. It seems that the result of this galaxy losing its black hole could have resulted in the galaxies famous ''loose arms.'' The galaxy is called the Triangulum. The core is surprisingly a nebula but there is more activity going on in the loose arms of the galaxy than what appears. Star formation should be happening in the center but surprisingly star formation is low. Here as some basics on its rotation curves:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909252 (https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909252)

What was found was that there was nothing too peculiar about the rotation curves, but what I later found out was that there is in fact a lot of activity hiding behind the thick curtain of gas in its arms and there is black hole activity in there. Then I found a second case to compare the theory, that black holes literally hold the structure of a spiral galaxy together in such a way, that the rotation curves will boil down to the same phenomenon.

This galaxy seems to strengthen my hypotheses about M33. This galaxy had its supermassive black hole ripped away much earlier than M33. The idea its black hole has been ejected is one of the top explanations apparently. What has happened, is not a collapse of the system, but stars are now diverging away from each other, creating a massive bulge - that bulge is created by a gradual separation over time, it probably was never that large.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...milky-way.html (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...milky-way.html)

It too is loosely separated, the arms are drifting off into space and loosing the rotational energy it once had. This galaxy we just looked at lost its black hole much earlier than M33 lost its supermassive black hole.

It's not that the rotation curves disappear when the central black hole disappears, it is that the structure itself will eventually fall apart - the rotation curves seem to be present so long as there is black hole activity. The galaxy which is 10 times the size of our Milky way, will eventually loose its bulge, it will deviate further and further away, maybe fall back on the galaxy and flatten out. There is still black hole activity going on in the arms of M33 and there is black hole activity going on inside of Abel 2261 which appears to be, helplessly, holding the structures together. As in the case of M33, the arms are loose and falling away from the center, which is direct evidence the entire spiral structure owes its structure to the supermassive black hole and if not present, will be overcome by the centrifugal force of the galaxy.

The binding energy of a galaxy like our own will need to have a binding energy equal or approx. equal to



The galaxy harbours a black hole. The energy of that hole is



The equality of both of these solutions would be to imply that the entire binding energy of the spiral galaxy is associated to the black hole. We know now there is evidence for this as a study of some rare galaxies in absence of supermassive black hole cores seem to either fall apart slowly due to the centrifugal forces or display a common characteristic of the spiral arms becoming more detached over time.

It's like that perhaps (nearly the entire) binding energy holding a galaxy is held together by the core massive hole. Black holes in the arms will be able to hold certain structures together over lengthly periods of time I suspect. These black holes will probably correct how much binding energy is holding a galaxy together.''

**Matti P.**
''You say that blackhole mass is equal to galactic binding energy. But can one say that binding energy is associated with the blackole. In any case, the notion of binding energy when represented as interaction potential energy is problematic. Certainly in GRT where also the notion of energy is problematic. And also in QFTs. In TGD framework I would like to get rid of the notion of potential energy altogether and wrote quite recently an article about how the mathematics of Yangians could allow to understand the generation of bound states and also of binding energy.''

It was clear something was incompatible in the model. Matti suggested the size of these early black holes had to be much more massive than we know in theory. Turns out there is evidence for this

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/earli...er-black-holes (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/earli...er-black-holes)

Early on, myself and Matti concluded the antimatter problem (of where it went to) 10 billion years ago could be answered if black holes were not large enough (whatever the mechanism, there seems to be a direct relationship between rotation curves and black hole size). It seems that this is not always the case, some of these black holes did manage to get supermassive in only 100,000 years! This means this hypothesis we have suggested is testable! Rotation curves need to be measured for these supermassive black holes with a million solar masses. Not only that but they have to be compared with other cases and we will notice if we see the rotation curves after a certain size or threshold.

A galaxy has been said to contain no dark matter halo

Dark matter 'missing' in a galaxy far, far away (https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html)

With some further investigation, I find it has no supermassive black hole at its core which supports the theory that the dark matter phenomenon is linked to the black holes at their centers. Further evidence has been found that support my hypothesis: It’s not so much that rotational curves have to disappear when the supermassive black hole is ejected from the core because additional binding energies and torsional properties of other black holes could potentially hold the system together for some time before being ripped apart.

The evidence found suggests there are in fact, hundreds but quite possibly thousands of black holes in around the center of the Milky Way. There is even evidence supporting my claims that the spin of the black hole plays a torsional role on the entire galaxy:

"Observational studies over the past 20 years have shown a clear link between the mass of the supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy and the properties of the galaxy in which it resides," Reynolds said. "These relations suggest a symbiotic relationship between the central black hole and its host galaxy."

By studying the black hole, astronomers can learn more about the origin and evolution of galaxies — and spin plays a very important role.

"The growth history of a supermassive black hole is encoded in its spin," Reynolds said.

Monster Black Hole Spins at Half the Speed of Light (https://www.space.com/24936-supermas...in-quasar.html)

Swarms of black holes found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=UVhtKAnp3G4

[slang]

Posts moved from this thread in S&T. Awarding an infraction for promoting ATM outside the ATM forum. It especially unhelpful to do so in a thread were another member is struggling to understand how mainstream theory works. Also, thread closed as only one ATM thread at a time may be active.

[Swift]

Also, thread closed as only one ATM thread at a time may be active.

With the other thread closed, and after a request by the OP, this thread is reopened.

[Dubbelosix]

Thank you.

[Dubbelosix]

Ok, so what evidence do we have that gravity plays the role of dark matter?

Well, off the mark this is a ... sort of oxymoron. We already know there is gravitational effects... so why did we resort to matter fields, namely, a dark matter, encompassing space like any other fundamental field?

I feel these days, it's my time to talk, especially all the people above me in well-paid jobs who have protested the existence of dark matter fields. Months and months of attempts to detect these dark matter particles, to years, have yielded nothing. Now scientists have speculated a smaller class of particle to explain the entire phenomenon, but this is starting to ring alarm bells in the minds of scientists.... the tide is shifting and the train of mind is changing.

Gravity in local galaxies, have been shown to be sufficient. In fact, if anyone respects Occam, this is a perfect example of his sharp razor: Galactic rotation curves arise within the galaxies themselves, not by additional halo's around them. Attempts to detect evidence of these halo's have not only shown up negative, but additionally negative against the evidence. A very good example of mainstream science supporting this ''local effect'' was most best demonstrated in the following article:


https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...be-an-illusion

It's not enough to say ''it's gravity'' however, in my arguments, when supermassive black holes with one third of the mass of the local clusters exist within it, and not expect significant gravitational effects, similar to a spacetime torsion not to exist. As shown in my posts before, there has already been calculational work showing that there is in fact a direct relationship between the supermassive black hole and recessional speeds at outermost galaxy.

It's so much more simpler, looking for the obvious dynamics instead of making up new ones. There is clear evidence that galaxies that have lost their supermassive black hole are falling apart. If anyone can demonstrate the opposite to the evidence I put forward, I ask them to speak up.

[Dubbelosix]

Keep in mind, if supermassive black holes are dynamically influencing galactic curve phenomenon, then we have a dynamic reason why dark matter effects seem to vanish just a little over 10 billion years into our past: Black holes in the center of galaxies would not have been as massive. I said in the OP ''ANTIMATTER'' I just want to make clear... this was an error, I meant dark matter.,

[Dubbelosix]

Ok, so what evidence ..... Now scientists have speculated a smaller class of particle to explain the entire phenomenon, but this is starting to ring alarm bells in the minds of scientists.... the tide is shifting and the train of mind is changing.

Gravity in local galaxies, have been shown to be sufficient.....

While I was suspended, I also came to an agreeable argument supporting gravitational influence. I expect there will be a few cosmologists here, in which case, they will probably respect this argument more than the general physicist. Ok, I provided evidence that the central black hole had a indicating energy equal to the galaxy or approximately to. In fact, gravity was able to overcome the expansion which technically could have ripped galaxies apart.

In cosmology, we are taught that space appears between matter: This is actually due to avoiding mechanical problems of matter itself inflating, unless the fluctuations have a wavelength smaller than the Hubble radius during the early stages. Further, cosmologists are taught, that gravitational attraction overcomes the expansion of spacetime, hence, space appears now between the galaxies, provided the evidence of galaxies now receding faster than the speed of light in the most distant horizon.

I realized an objection to this theory early on... if the centrifugal force did accelerate the universe but has since decayed, what is causing the acceleration of the universe today?

The answer was suprisingly time-consuming, but I came to realize, that Newtons laws hold. If the universe get's large enough, then if not affected by an external force, would continue expanding, at an accelerated rate. It needs to get large enough in a short amount of time to allow this, but initial calculations show this is possible.

[Reality Check]

I did a nice study on this and even caught the attention of a physicist I was in close contact with. ...

Some points and a question, Dubbelosix.
"We look back 10 billion years and find that galaxies are behaving like they consist of ordinary matter", sources please?

The relationship between black holes and galaxies

Other studies found another strong correlation. This one was between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the orbital speed of stars in the outer regions of their galaxy where the direct gravitational influence of the supermassive black hole should be weak: the larger the black hole, the faster the outer stars travel.

The article is on a correlation between galaxies, not a relationship within a galaxy. This is not about the galaxy rotation curves that are evidence for dark matter. That is the difference between the predictions and measurement of stellar and gas speeds starting at the the center of a galaxy to the outermost part of the galaxy.

Dark matter cannot be linked intrinsically to just galaxies because the galaxy rotation curves are only 1 piece of evidence for dark matter. Perhaps the most compelling evidence for dark matter is the separation of the gas between galaxies in galaxy cluster collision into normal and dark matter.

The term "black hole torsional structure" needs defining. Black hole without spin have a spherical event horizon. Spinning black holes have an ergosphere. Our supermassive black hole has a radius smaller than the orbit of Mercury. That "structure" should be irrelevant for anything of the scales of light years.

Spiral arm structure (or "loose arms") is not linked with black holes.

The earliest galaxies formed very early n the history of the universe. The oldest known galaxy is GN-z11 at ~13.4 billion years ago.

The Triangulum galaxy (M33) probably not having a supermassive black hole and having a rotation curve implying a dark mattes halo is evidence of no link between the two. The Extended Rotation Curve and the Dark Matter Halo of M33
A "lot of activity" (the ultraluminous X-ray source UXS?) is not really evidence of black hole activity in the center of M33. The source of ULX is unknown but does include intermediate-mass black holes.

The Triangulum galaxy is a spiral galaxy with plenty of structure. It cannot be compared to the elliptical galaxy A2261-BCG. All they have in common is no central supermassive black hole. A possibility is that M33 never formed one while A2261-BCG had 2 that merged and were ejected (your Monster Galaxy One Million Light Years Wide With No Central Black Hole link).

The gravitational binding energy of a galaxy cannot be compared that of their supermassive black hole. The gravitational binding energy is that of a spherical mass of uniform density which is not a black hole. Gravitational binding energy of a black hole is actually an interesting question. Is it meaningless because this a Newtonian concept? Is it infinite because we cannot split one up? But what about Hawking radiation?

[Dave Lee]

Thanks Dubbelosix

I have just noticed that this thread is open.
Let me add few comments.

[Dave Lee]

Let me start with the dark matter:

Dark matter cannot be linked intrinsically to just galaxies because the galaxy rotation curves are only 1 piece of evidence for dark matter. Perhaps the most compelling evidence for dark matter is the separation of the gas between galaxies in galaxy cluster collision into normal and dark matter.

I don't understand that evidence.
Why the separation of the gas between galaxies in galaxy cluster collision into normal and dark matter is an evidence for dark matter?

However;
Let's start by assuming that the Universe is full with dark matter.

If so, as we go further away from the center of the galaxy, the total dark matter must increase.
For each longer orbital cycle, there must be more dark matter in the orbital sphere.
So why our scientists claim that for each galaxy there is a finite dark matter?
If for each longer orbital cycle we get higher dark matter mass, then don't you think that there is no limit for the dark matter mass per galaxy?

Conclusion:

As the real matter is neglected comparing to dark matter, than the impact of small galaxy should be similar to big galaxy if the orbital cycle in both is long enough.
If this is not realistic, than the whole idea of dark matter must be unrealistic by definition.

[tusenfem]

Let me start with the dark matter:



I don't understand that evidence.
Why the separation of the gas between galaxies in galaxy cluster collision into normal and dark matter is an evidence for dark matter?

However;
Let's start by assuming that the Universe is full with dark matter.

If so, as we go further away from the center of the galaxy, the total dark matter must increase.
For each longer orbital cycle, there must be more dark matter in the orbital sphere.
So why our scientists claim that for each galaxy there is a finite dark matter?
If for each longer orbital cycle we get higher dark matter mass, then don't you think that there is no limit for the dark matter mass per galaxy?

Conclusion:

As the real matter is neglected comparing to dark matter, than the impact of small galaxy should be similar to big galaxy if the orbital cycle in both is long enough.
If this is not realistic, than the whole idea of dark matter must be unrealistic by definition.

NO, this is NOT your thread, Dave Lee, and thus we are NOT going there, answering your questions, or discuss your notions about how things should be.

[Grey]

Dubbelosix, you seem to be suggesting that the supermassive black hole found at the center of many galaxies could account for the rotation curves we see, making additional dark matter unnecessary. This idea fails to match observation in two basic ways.

First, the mass is not sufficient. For example, Sgr A*, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, has a mass estimated at about 4 million solar masses. This is pretty large for a single object, but isn't even close to the estimated mass of the stars and gas, somewhere around 50 billion solar masses. And the estimated amount of dark matter in the Milky Way based on its dynamics is around a trillion solar masses. The central black hole dominates its immediate neighborhood gravitationally, but really has no significant effect on the galaxy as a whole.

Second, the mass is not correctly distributed. A single central mass cannot produce the rotation curves that we see. The key feature in galactic rotation curves is that, rather than orbital velocities being much lower for stars orbiting farther from the center (which is what you see in systems dominated by a large central mass, such as our solar system), the rotation curves are close to flat, indicating that the mass responsible for the orbit is spread out, rather than concentrated at the center. So a single central mass, no matter how large, will not cause the stars to move the way we see galaxies rotate.

[Dubbelosix]

Dubbelosix, you seem to be suggesting that the supermassive black hole found at the center of many galaxies could account for the rotation curves we see, making additional dark matter unnecessary. This idea fails to match observation in two basic ways.

First, the mass is not sufficient. For example, Sgr A*, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, has a mass estimated at about 4 million solar masses. This is pretty large for a single object, but isn't even close to the estimated mass of the stars and gas, somewhere around 50 billion solar masses. And the estimated amount of dark matter in the Milky Way based on its dynamics is around a trillion solar masses. The central black hole dominates its immediate neighborhood gravitationally, but really has no significant effect on the galaxy as a whole.

Second, the mass is not correctly distributed. A single central mass cannot produce the rotation curves that we see. The key feature in galactic rotation curves is that, rather than orbital velocities being much lower for stars orbiting farther from the center (which is what you see in systems dominated by a large central mass, such as our solar system), the rotation curves are close to flat, indicating that the mass responsible for the orbit is spread out, rather than concentrated at the center. So a single central mass, no matter how large, will not cause the stars to move the way we see galaxies rotate.

I returned for this because your questions are almost too good to ignore.


The mass, is perfectly sufficient for typical spiral galaxies like our own, which may mean that other types of galaxies are more complicated objects. I did show above that the typical binding energy of a spiral galaxy is equivalent to the energy of the supermassive black hole at its center. Further more, the fact that dark matter effects seem to vanish 10 billion years into the universes history, suggests [strongly] a dynamic cause for dark matter [within the galaxy itself] because the absence of dark matter in conventional theory does not hold. The only dynamic cause that immediately comes to mind is the size of the supermassive black hole itself - they typically would not have been large enough to create dark matter effects.

As for the ''mass is not correctly distributed'' - that is not true at all, but I can see why one may think that. Do you not wonder what holds a galaxy together, resisting the centrifugal force that should push a galaxy apart? It's simply gravity. The fact that the central supermassive black hole has an energy totally equivalent to the binding energy of a typical spiral galaxy, is I suggest, no coincidence. There are additional binding energies from thousands of black holes near the center of the galaxy as well.

Gravity can completely answer for the rotation curves, and we will come to learn this in time. Please read this next link, as it is on the same kind of page.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...be-an-illusion

[Dubbelosix]

Spiral arm structure (or "loose arms") is not linked with black holes.

The galaxies that loose their supermassive black hole will result in the galaxy - the only exception are galaxies that are not too old. You find me a galaxy which hasn't lost it's supermassive black hole, is relatively old, and is not falling apart.

[Dubbelosix]

Let me start with the dark matter:



I don't understand that evidence.
Why the separation of the gas between galaxies in galaxy cluster collision into normal and dark matter is an evidence for dark matter?

Reality check is missing the most important point, that dark halo's have not been detected. It's actually a serious blow to dark matter physics.

[Dubbelosix]

The bottom line is, we need to work with anomalies, these are our best friends. I know there was a serious problem with

1. Dark Matter effects vanish 10 billion years into the universes past

This simply doesn't make sense.

2. Then all attempts to measure Dark Matter halo's have turned up negative.

This is not good. So I implore the readers to reconsider what they have learned. Plus, we have also failed to find any dark matter particles.

[Shaula]

1. Dark Matter effects vanish 10 billion years into the universes past

Reference, please? Because dark matter effects are seen in the form of acoustic oscillations in the CMB and leave a signature in elemental ratios.

2. Then all attempts to measure Dark Matter halo's have turned up negative.

They leave testable signatures in clusters and have been measured by weak lensing.

Other than that I don't see much to discuss - you seem to be proposing that black holes have a different kind of gravity to everything else and fix the need for DM via some kind of MONDian magic associated with them? All you seem to have is an order of magnitude coincidence. Do you have anything more concrete than this?

[Dubbelosix]

I have referenced everything in the OP.

No, not a different kind of gravity. Gravity works perfectly fine. Spiral galaxies are actually some of the simplest, if not the simplest forms of galaxies. The disk is created from the galaxies spin over time. To think gravity is acting differently or that it doesn't have a sufficient mass, is just wrong.

[Dubbelosix]

They leave testable signatures in clusters and have been measured by weak lensing.

And yet, here we are, unable to find them from modern investigations. Only a few weeks ago, the most delicate instruments used to detect dark matter have also came up failed. Time to move on.

[Shaula]

I have referenced everything in the OP.

No, not a different kind of gravity. Gravity works perfectly fine. Spiral galaxies are actually some of the simplest, if not the simplest forms of galaxies. The disk is created from the galaxies spin over time. To think gravity is acting differently or that it doesn't have a sufficient mass, is just wrong.

You have referenced the finding that one galaxy in the early universe appears to have no dark matter. This is not the same as dark matter effects vanishing.

You have referenced a physicist proposing an alternative to dark matter, not evidence against the dozens of papers out there showing results for weak lensing.

You've provided no detail about how your ideas lead to the rotation curves we see. Increasing the density of black holes near the galactic centre won't do it. Adding in more black holes spread through the galaxy contradicts X-ray background and microlensing studies. So your ideas are either wrong or you have not provided the key parts of the model that makes them plausible.

[Dubbelosix]

You've provided no detail about how your ideas lead to the rotation curves we see. Increasing the density of black holes near the galactic centre won't do it. Adding in more black holes spread through the galaxy contradicts X-ray background and microlensing studies. So your ideas are either wrong or you have not provided the key parts of the model that makes them plausible.

You need to forget about the weak lensing as evidence for dark matter in my humble opinion. The facts are simply not adding up. Even with weak lensing, you are failing to recognize that

1) Attempts to find dark matter particles have failed

2) Dark matter was initially created to explain rotation curves, not a weak lensing phenomenon which could be caused by different things in many different theories.

3) Attempts to measure dark halo's have shown negative results.

Don't you find it superlfuous to introduce an entirely new field of particles to explain a rotation curve? This is field theory gone insane - instead of looking for reasonable internal dynamics as to why the galaxy exhibited rotation curves, resulted in an entirely new force field of matter, which seems like a violation of Occam straight off. Concerning evidence between galactic black hole size and the rotation curves in the OP further suggests there has been correlative evidence that has either been overlooked, or simply ignored.

Dark matter effects from one galaxy, yes... which is why I have suggested this needs to be tested further. The great thing is, my theory is testable. What do you mean, black holes spread throughout the galaxy? That's a matter of fact, there are certainly not spread evenly. In fact, over time, black holes are expected to condense to the central region of the galaxy.

[slang]

Reality check is missing the most important point, that dark halo's have not been detected. It's actually a serious blow to dark matter physics.

A moderator clearly instructed that Dave Lee's questions were not to be answered. He was not joking. Infraction issued.

[Dubbelosix]

Hello. I replied to Dave because I read that first. I replied first.

The infraction is unfair. Bye.

[Dubbelosix]

I put my own hypothesis to the test and found three significant galaxies that support this notion that the supermassive black hole is playing a dynamic role. Reality check asks for the torsional effect of the black hole to be defined: Black holes are literal sink holes of space. When they spin, they literally pull spacetime around with it. These effects have not been taken into consideration. Also, supermassive black holes were a little bit larger than what we initially expected. Torsion, is part of the full Poincare group of spatial translations and so would be very unusual if it did not feature somewhere in our theory. Black holes would be the perfect system to create torsional effects because they are capable of rotating spacetime around it.

[Dubbelosix]

Now more galaxies need to be studied. It's difficult to predict when a galaxy actually looses its supermassive black hole, but examples shown, provides evidence that the galaxy itself eventually falls apart, characteristic of spiral galaxies ''loose arms.'' Galaxies that retain their supermassive black hole is proposed not to turn out like this: But this isn't always the case, because loose arms may also form when two galaxies get too close together. But that alone is testament to the gravitational interaction exerted by the neighbor galaxy - gravity plays dynamic fundamental importance in the role of the galaxies.

[Shaula]

1) Attempts to find dark matter particles have failed

Not disputing that at all. But so did attempts to find neutrinos, gravitational waves, and the Higgs. Until one day they didn't fail. So given how little we know about what we are looking for I dont see this as a killer argument.

2) Dark matter was initially created to explain rotation curves, not a weak lensing phenomenon which could be caused by different things in many different theories.

The evidence from weak lensing corroborates the theory while being independent of the phenomenon dark matter was fitted to. It is good evidence we are on the right track.

3) Attempts to measure dark halo's have shown negative results.

Except the ones you have chosen to ignore, which gave positive results.

You have yet to present anything convincing as to how or why black holes are the answer. Nothing resembling a testable model, no details on predictions. I suggest you stop trying to show that the mainstream is wrong as even if you could (and so far all you have done is make a series of dubious claims and come up with excuses to ignore evidence you find inconvenient) it wouldnt make your ideas the replacement. Focus on the details of your ideas, focus on predictions and showing how your ideas match observations better.

Or just keep making questionable claims about the mainstream and vague claims about how good your ideas are and I'll happily file this thread in my brain's /dev/null with all the other ATM threads that thought rhetoric trumped scientific method.

[Dubbelosix]

Not disputing that at all. But so did attempts to find neutrinos, gravitational waves, and the Higgs.

Except the neutrino, gravitational waves and the Higgs are direct predictions of the standard model, while dark matter was not. Dark matter was added in later to account for the recessional velocities. These first three phenomenon, in my opinion, are a totally different class to dark matter (as is currently) understood. At the time when the added those dark matter fields into the standard model, it would have been an extension to try and explain anomalies of physics.