It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So once again you have no idea what it is you are talking about and under estimating the level of study that has gone into it.
The gravity fields and rotation curves of whirlpool galaxies with thin disc distribution of material are calculated numerically. It is proved that the gravity field of mass thin disc distribution is greatly different from that of spherically symmetrical distribution. As long as the Newtonian theory of gravity is used strictly, by the proper mass distributions of thin discs, the flat rotation curves of whirlpool galaxies can be explained well. The rotating curve of the Milky Galaxy is obtained which coincides with practical observation. In this way, it is unnecessary for us to suppose the existence of additional dark material in the illuminant discs of whirlpool galaxy again. Meanwhile, in the space outside the illuminant disc, the quantity of dark material needed to maintain the flatness of rotation curves is greatly decreased. By considering the observation fact that the quantity of non-luminous baryon material is 3~10 times more than luminous material, we can explain the flatness of rotation curves of whirlpool galaxies well without the hypotheses of non-baryon dark material.
The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory predicts that roughly 25% the mass of the Universe consists of Helium. It also predicts about 0.01% deuterium, and even smaller quantities of lithium. The important point is that the prediction depends critically on the density of baryons (ie neutrons and protons) at the time of nucleosynthesis. Furthermore, one value of this baryon density can explain all the abundances at once. In terms of the present day critical density of matter, the required density of baryons is a few percent (the exact value depends on the assumed value of the Hubble constant). This relatively low value means that not all of the dark matter can be baryonic, ie we are forced to consider more exotic particle candidates.
Sorry maybe i just don't understand your point, but, to be honest I don't actually think you understand what you wrote or are trying to say.
These physicists obviously know math better than Kryzma..
...though I didn't study their calculations in detail.
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433
again... F = -GMm/r2
What I'm saying is, and this is that you seemingly can't wrap your head around is, that there is no 'm', there is just 'M', so the equation is not calculable, especially not for v = sqrt(Gm/r) as this equation comes from the first, the 2 mass equation.
originally posted by: ErosA433
is this what ATS is now? Free form trolling?
Simply put, this statement is incorrect. You can, if you study any physics and astronomy, look at a star, you can then, based upon its distance, observed luminosity and colour spectrum (stellar class) give a fairly good prediction of its mass. Newton and Kepler both gave different treatments of orbital mechanics and when we take examples in which we can infact 'weigh' objects due to observed movement in pairs or groups we can double check we get our mass range correct. We also know the mass of the sun as a test reference, and the masses of the planets also as test references to make sure we at least get the G constant correct. So when it comes to galaxies, you can, with a reasonable certainty, look at the luminosity and apparent colour of a star field and calculate its mass. With a nearby object such as Andromeda you can take that a step further and look at stars and gas clouds. To make a blanket statement that "We cant measure anything!" is to be ignorant of the entire field of astronomy and physics for a few hundred years. Calibration of ur distance scale is being updated constantly based upon measurements of objects and so called standard candles... objects which should give almost exactly the same amounts of light when they occur to within great accuracy. So your statement comes quite clearly ignorant of the reality and what the state of play is. If you want to state "You guys don't know Newtons force equation!" you have to prove your statement with a good amount of backup... all i see from you is dismissal with zero evidence... as per usual for your posts.
When you calculate the orbital velocity of your stars in a galaxy you account for the mass on the inside of its orbit using what you know about the stars on the inside.