Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 67

Thread: Dubbelosix' spiral arm ATM

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    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.
    You speak with such sincerity concerning the subject, I know, but I do not share your enthusiasm for the evidence, or whether we are on the right track.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Except the ones you have chosen to ignore, which gave positive results.
    Not quite, I do recognize people have put a lot of work into this. I know people have convinced themselves of a particular theory. I think the evidence has been very ... misleading. And I don't think it was intentional either.

    I suppose it isn't to ask too much, for us to wait to see if any conclusive evidence of dark matter particles existed? Though again, I do not remain enthusiastic any will be found.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    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.
    Neutrinos were added to explain apparently broken conservation laws. It was not predicted by the standard model. Gravitational waves are a general relativity prediction, of the three examples probably the least of an add on to explain an observation. The Higgs was one of several possible mass generation mechanisms which required a new field with a broken symmetry. It was not a prediction of the standard model, it was an addition to try to explain where mass came from.

    But this is irrelevant to the core issue here. You have not presented a credible alternative to explain galactic rotation curves in any detail. Can you? Or are the claims you have made as much as we can expect?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Neutrinos were added to explain apparently broken conservation laws. It was not predicted by the standard model. Gravitational waves are a general relativity prediction, of the three examples probably the least of an add on to explain an observation. The Higgs was one of several possible mass generation mechanisms which required a new field with a broken symmetry. It was not a prediction of the standard model, it was an addition to try to explain where mass came from.

    But this is irrelevant to the core issue here. You have not presented a credible alternative to explain galactic rotation curves in any detail. Can you? Or are the claims you have made as much as we can expect?
    Maybe I am wrong, but I am quite sure the neutrino was predicted by the standard model, but it ended up being massless.

    And as for one of several theories to explain how matter got mass, the Higgs boson was the most popular, most logical theory as we understood it from electroweak symmetry breaking which certainly is part of the standard model.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    But this is irrelevant to the core issue here. You have not presented a credible alternative to explain galactic rotation curves in any detail. Can you?
    What are you looking for exactly?

    I have based many of these premises on things people have already published. I don't know what kind of details you would want - hard calculations working out recessional velocities, a mathematical working model perhaps explaining the entire phenomenon?

    Of course I don't. Collaboration is needed.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    I know, while I do not have a full compact model yet, there are many physicists and layman alike who are simply not happy with dark matter, or the evidence presented to sustain it. A theory should sell itself, indirect evidence is really not enough for many us. Many theories that rely on indirect evidence will always come into scrutiny. A good example is inflation.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    I've just understood another way to articulate this. As explained by cosmologists, as the universe expands, space appears between galaxies. A common question is what prevents spacetime expansion from basically ripping a galaxy apart? The answer is of course gravity.

    Gravity acts like a web, holding the galaxy together - the central SMBH will of course be playing some dynamic role, then there are the thousands of black holes expected to be orbiting the SMBH's.

    If gravity holds the structures of galaxies together, then why haven't we understood it could have clear implications to rotation curves?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    What are you looking for exactly?

    I have based many of these premises on things people have already published. I don't know what kind of details you would want - hard calculations working out recessional velocities, a mathematical working model perhaps explaining the entire phenomenon?
    That would be nice. But really I am looking for details. So far your idea can be summarised as "black holes do it via magic". You've mentioned torsional effects. What effects do you predict this would have other than magically fixing DM? Why do we only see the frame dragging we expect from GR when we measure it? Why does it appear to be independent of black hole mass? If you have nothing resembling a theory this may not be the forum to present your ideas.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    No... not by magic. Do you really think I would preach that to a science forum?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    What effects do you predict this would have other than magically fixing DM? Why do we only see the frame dragging we expect from GR when we measure it? Why does it appear to be independent of black hole mass? If you have nothing resembling a theory this may not be the forum to present your ideas.

    Frame dragging is technically not classed as torsion. Though the effects are similar I admit.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Why does it appear to be independent of black hole mass?
    What's independent of black hole mass? The galaxy is certainly not independent of it.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    A good way to prove this, is if we find any galaxy that rotates opposite to the rotation of a black hole. Otherwise, why else is the galaxy rotating a particular handedness?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Maybe I am wrong, but I am quite sure the neutrino was predicted by the standard model, but it ended up being massless.
    You are wrong. The were proposed by Dirac to fix conservation laws apparently being violated in beta decay. It took ten years to get experimental evidence. They were assumed to be massless, but this was also not a prediction. They turned out to have mass, flavour oscillations being the critical piece of evidence for this.

    The standard model really came about in the 60s and 70s, at least so thirty plus years after they were postulated.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    What's independent of black hole mass? The galaxy is certainly not independent of it.
    We see galaxies with little dark matter for their size, we see galaxies with a lot of dark matter for their size. So the size of the effect is only only weakly correlated to galactic mass and hence its core mass.

    But I am not getting the feeling that you have anything to present that can be meaningfully discussed. I'm going to drop out until I see some details i can actually look into. Wooly discussions like this really aren't my thing.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    A good way to prove this, is if we find any galaxy that rotates opposite to the rotation of a black hole. Otherwise, why else is the galaxy rotating a particular handedness?
    Also, a large excess of galaxes studied has shown that galaxies tend to prefer a particular handedness. The black hole that spins a particular direction ends up seeding a galaxy and providing initial angular momentum in a particular direction. It would also mean the excess of black holes in a universe will tend to rotate a particular direction as well. The excess galaxies, was found to be a 1 in a million chance. More study needs to be done.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    We see galaxies with little dark matter for their size, we see galaxies with a lot of dark matter for their size. So the size of the effect is only only weakly correlated to galactic mass and hence its core mass.
    No one has seen dark matter. You are working from a faulty premise from the start, in which you deduct an indirect evidence supports the notion but it only mystifies the problem because we haven't detected dark matter. The day we detect dark matter, you can objectively say, ''we have seen dark matter'' otherwise, this phenomenon people are identifying as dark matter could very well be something else.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    But I am not getting the feeling that you have anything to present that can be meaningfully discussed. I'm going to drop out until I see some details i can actually look into. Wooly discussions like this really aren't my thing.

    Sorry the discussions don't seem to be satisfying you.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Maybe I am wrong, but I am quite sure the neutrino was predicted by the standard model, but it ended up being massless.
    You may be "quite sure" but you are quite surely wrong. The correct history is that beta decay seemed to contradict conservation of energy (it was not possible to reconcile the observed continuous nature of the energy spectrum of the emitted electrons with the particles then known). Even Bohr was briefly willing to consider that such conservation may not hold. It took Pauli to propose a solution that preserved energy conservation.

    (and a minor grammar nit: "Phenomenon" is singular. The plural is "phenomena".)

  19. #49
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You may be "quite sure" but you are quite surely wrong. The correct history is that beta decay seemed to contradict conservation of energy (it was not possible to reconcile the observed continuous nature of the energy spectrum of the emitted electrons with the particles then known). Even Bohr was briefly willing to consider that such conservation may not hold. It took Pauli to propose a solution that preserved energy conservation.

    (and a minor grammar nit: "Phenomenon" is singular. The plural is "phenomena".)
    Yes Shaula did explain.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Sorry the discussions don't seem to be satisfying you.
    What would satisfy (and would comply with the ATM forum's rules) would be a scientific defence of your proposal, not a mere recitation of what you perceive to be the deficiencies of mainstream theory. As Shaula pointed out, simply showing the mainstream to be wrong is not the same as providing support for your idea specifically, so complaining about the mainstream is a waste of time. What you need to do is show that your theory provides a superior quantitative match to observations. If you can't do that, then you're essentially saying "Take my word for it."

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    What would satisfy (and would comply with the ATM forum's rules) would be a scientific defence of your proposal, not a mere recitation of what you perceive to be the deficiencies of mainstream theory.

    But I have. I have provided a varied range of different arguments including those which involved studying galaxies that had lost their supermassive black holes.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    But I have. I have provided a varied range of different arguments including those which involved studying galaxies that had lost their supermassive black holes.
    You have provided a varied range of assertions lacking in specificity. I must agree with Shaula that your position can be summarised succinctly as "...and then magic happens." You have not shown that you can reproduce observations. You have only asserted that, once "collaboration" occurs, you will be shown to be right. We're therefore back to "Trust me...magic happens."

  23. #53
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You have provided a varied range of assertions ...

    Coming from you who stated I haven't provided anything scientific to the discussion?

    I've been down this route with another dishonest poster. I will quietly terminate this with you alone, if you are going to be disingenuous.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    A good way to prove this, is if we find any galaxy that rotates opposite to the rotation of a black hole. Otherwise, why else is the galaxy rotating a particular handedness?
    The black hole was formed from the same material as the rest of the galaxy and so conservation of angular momentum makes it very probably that they will rotate in the same direction. (As far as I am aware, we are not able to observe the rotation of any black holes currently, so I guess it is an assumption that they would have the same rotation as the galaxy.)

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    If gravity holds the structures of galaxies together, then why haven't we understood it could have clear implications to rotation curves?
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Using gravity to predict the expected rotation curves, based on the visible mass of galaxies, does not match what we observe.

    Adding "extra" mass that only interacts gravitationally produces the expected rotation curves. Adding this mass also explains several other things (gravitational lensing, large structure formation, etc).

    It is possible that a modified description of gravity could produce the same results, but no one has successfully done that yet.

    It is still not clear what you are proposing. You say it has something to do with the black hole at the centre of the galaxy. You need to produce a quantitative model that shows how this (relatively) minute mass can cause the observer effects. This is what seems to be lacking so far, that Shaula and others are asking for.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Using gravity to predict the expected rotation curves, based on the visible mass of galaxies, does not match what we observe.
    That entirely depends on whether we understand gravity. Arguably there are facets of this theory which is testable, but thought experiments are good creatures as well. I offered a type of thought experiment: I ask, where does the galaxy owe its rotational energy from? Why for instance, does a galaxy spin a certain way?

    Current unified field theory suggests black holes where created in the early stages of the universe - the size of those black holes may have varied. During the evolution of nucleosynthesis, these black holes would have seeded the first structures that later we would come to identify as galaxies - it is no accident that matter tends to orbit a supermassive black hole, no more than finding that supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. The spin of a galaxy [should] correlate with the spin of the supermassive black hole. Otherwise, how do you suggest we explain why a handedness exists in galaxies? What a strange prediction it would be to suggest a supermassive black hole spins anticlockwise to a galaxy it harbors.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Also, the visible mass of our galaxy has an energy equivalent to the SMBH in the center of typical galaxies like our own. I don't know why you seem to think this cannot work out, in the sense, it doesn't match what we observe.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The black hole was formed from the same material as the rest of the galaxy and so conservation of angular momentum makes it very probably that they will rotate in the same direction. (As far as I am aware, we are not able to observe the rotation of any black holes currently, so I guess it is an assumption that they would have the same rotation as the galaxy.)
    Black holes are predicted to be present, along side the strong gravitational forces residing in the universe - black holes though, cannot form during the radiation phase, they need to form as that radiation transmutates into matter from electroweak symmetry breaking. They still, serve as the seeds of early galaxies.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    In fact, this brings us back to the question then, can a black hole spin anticlockwise to a galaxy(?), I say not. In fact, material I have read, suggests not. The supermassive black hole plays a dynamic role in the polarity of a gravitational field inherent within the galaxy. A disk only rotates clockwise or anticlockwrise with respect to the SMBH depending on which poles of the black hole is facing.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    (As far as I am aware, we are not able to observe the rotation of any black holes currently, so I guess it is an assumption that they would have the same rotation as the galaxy.)
    I just gave this some more thought, and this is not the case at all. While we cannot measure the spin of a black hole directly, you can easily measure which direction it is moving in from the surrounding matter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •