theory explains why galaxies rotate the way they do, without dark matter

this is a very interesting development,

But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit.

link to source

as i understand the idea......
the matter required to compensate for the rotational characteristic is not in the form of internal Dark Matter,
it is instead "exterior" to the galaxy and normal baryonic matter (visable matter) and not dark.

this is the most simple yet elegant explination with very close predicted to acual velocities.

occams razor says the most simple explination usually is the correct one,

that said some of the forms of math used are different from current useage.

the plots are very convincing and to me the logic is good, and of the four Galaxies used in the case study do seam to fit with a high degree of acuracy.

so the question becaomes,
is it more unbeleiveable that 80% of the universe is invisable and undetectable?
or that gravity from other galaxies that are visable, could explain the rotational inconsistencies?

here is a link to the full paper on ARXIV

galaxy rotational paper

the article doesnt go into the Dark Energy problem but the same effects could be traced to the same source,

other galaxies at large scale distences.

cheack the math out!!!!

xploder

Question: why do the galaxies swing their arms like that.
Answer: because the universe is watching.

Excellent paper.
Thanks.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


a comment from the first link

Actually, Occam's (or "Ockham's") Razor would seem to favor Carati's interpretation. After all, postulating that 80% of the Universe is composed of some kind of mysterious mass that does not otherwise interact with our reality is what is the more outrageous claim. I daresay you favor that interpretation merely because it is more familiar. Hardly a good way to measure scientific veracity.

What was unmentioned here is that Carati's calculations would tend to eliminate any need for "dark energy", too. Which, if anything, makes his idea that much more plausible.

from "comments" section LINK

would be interesting if this simple idea can be tested against "other" galaxies to see if it is a fluke


i myself are starting to support his arguments......

xploder

I think this guy has a long way to go as far as peer-review before this is taken seriously at all.
Yeah it fits 4 galaxies, but there are billions of galaxies. I don't find it very remarkable that he is able to find 4 out of a couple hundred billion that fits his model.

reply to post by MeesterB


here is a second source article and descussions are at the bottom

second source

well good science is when a theory is dutifully tested and debated,
i dont think the juries out yet but as i have skimmed the paper and it does use some "older forms of math"
i would like to hear what people think not only of his conclusions,
but also the math that gets him there.

sometimes a good idea gets a hard time because it seeks to rewrite what is thought as "settled"

i just hope this gets the attension it deserves without bias from DM supporters.


xploder

Occam's razor is right. The simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Like this

The simplest answer in the case of rotating galaxies would be "cuz they're dizzy."

As it is, we know for a fact dark matter exists and influences the movement of galaxies through gravitational pull. According to observable physics, dark matter = simple. Well, simple enough...

It's sound (frequency) that spins the galaxies...

go to 1:12

I was under the impression that not all black hole and galaxy’s had spin anyway so maybe there is a range of variation concerning this effect (there must be if you think about it)

It could be that stars in galaxies are not in orbit at all. What we could be watching is a slow motion dance of death (spiral decay) whereby all galaxies are simply luminous matter being sucked into black holes in some kind of mopping up operation by the universe.

Originally posted by Figzer
The simplest answer in the case of rotating galaxies would be "cuz they're dizzy."

As it is, we know for a fact dark matter exists and influences the movement of galaxies through gravitational pull. According to observable physics, dark matter = simple. Well, simple enough...

We "know for a fact" that dark matter exists. After all, according to accepted gravity theory, which everyone "knows for a fact"as well; there is not enough mass in any galaxy we can see to hold itself together, according to this theory "everyone knows for a fact". On top of that, the stars further out from the center should be rotating slower, rather than all moving en masse as we can SEE they are doing. Obviously, there is NO WAY these theories could be wrong. After all, everyone "knows for a fact" that they are true. Since our theory cannot possibly be wrong, the OBSERVATIONS must be wrong. In order to make the observations fit the theory, 99 percent of the entire universe must be invisible magic pixie dust that has no influence in any way on anything observable, except for the effect it has of making our complex mathematical equations work out.

Therefore, it is obvious that there must be magic pixie dust, because our theory says so. The scientific method dictates that we make the observations fit the theories. Oh, wait, every time we point the Hubble telescope in a new direction, astronomers are "baffled" by what they see. Looks like the magic pixie dust isn't quite enough. Obviously, there must be also some extra magical energy to make up for those leftover numbers. There, see, the theory is right again. Pay no attention to what we can see with our telescopes.

Originally posted by XPLodER
this is the most simple yet elegant explination with very close predicted to acual velocities.

It's not simple, it's not elegant, and it's not an explanation, so it strikes out.

It is an attempt to fit a mathematical model to observations but it sounds like some bad assumptions were made in the process.

Moreover the conflicting information we get on this topic is mind-boggling. The OP article states:

Nonetheless, as this past Universe Today article explains, if we assume a similar relationship between the cumulative mass of the Milky Way and the orbital velocity of its outer stars, we must acknowledge that the visible objects within the Milky Way only have 10-20% of the mass that is required to contain the orbital velocity of stars in its outer disk. So we conclude that the rest of that galactic mass must be dark (invisible) matter.

Yet on the other hand, we have this:

www.universetoday.com...

Using estimations on the mass from the visible stars and the interstellar medium, the team compared this visible mass to the solution for mass from the observations of the kinematics to search for a discrepancy indicative of dark matter. When the comparison was made, the team discovered that, “[t]he agreement between the visible mass and our dynamical solution is striking, and there is no need to invoke any dark component.”

The first one says the Milky way appears to have 90 percent dark matter, the second one says the Milky way motions can be explained without any dark matter at all, and without any of the silly assumptions made in the math the OP article cites.

With this kind of a "discrepancy", I'm not completely convinced we have the right idea about dark matter, but I am pretty convinced the idea mentioned in the OP is even more wrong than our current thinking, which is probably also wrong.

Here's another alternative thought which has much more credibility than the one in the OP story:

Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong. That suggests the cold dark matter model is wrong and what may actually exist is warm dark matter. I don't know if that's right either, but it's much more plausible to me than the OP article claim.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


i recall a while ago i read an article that stated,

(not direct quote from memory)
that a study of dwarf galaxies showed they must contain dark matter,
but at the exact same time could not contain dark matter,

a direct contradiction, but as the math worked out they were at a loss to explain their own results.

i would ask what is the chance of using inncorect premises, a few of them by your description,
and coming out with data that closly matches observation?

this mathmatical model has only been used on four galaxies and a close corrilation looks to be made,

i would like to see thsi expanded to many more galaxies to see if it stands up over a larger cross section of galaxies.

do you think its interesting that he reverted to some earlyer forms of math?
do you think the model is too "complex" or can you explain your objections to the paper?

thanks xp

Originally posted by XPLodER
do you think the model is too "complex" or can you explain your objections to the paper?

thanks xp

My objections were stated well in two paragraphs in the OP story:

The math draws on principles established in the Einstein field equations, which is problematic as the field equations are based on the cosmological principle, which assumes that the effect of faraway matter is negligible – or at least that it evens out at a large scale.

Perplexingly, Carati’s paper also notes two further examples where the math can also fit galaxies with declining rotational velocities in their outer stars. This is achieved by switching the sign of one of the formulae components (which can be + or -). Thus, on the one hand the effect of faraway matter is to induce a positive pressure that contains the rapid rotation of stars, preventing them from flying off – and on the other hand, it can induce a negative pressure to encourage an atypical decay in a galaxy’s rotation curve.

So the first problem: he's using math which assumes the effect of faraway matter cancels out, and he's not assuming it cancels out. But the second paragraph is an even larger problem:

If you can't decide if the sign is supposed to be + or -, that's a pretty big problem. In other words, is the outside matter speeding up, or slowing down the rotation? It seems somewhat idiotic to say it's doing both, don't you agree? I think you have to pick a sign and decide whether the outside matter is speeding up, or slowing down the rotation. The latter is the more likely of those two options, but the most likely option is that the cosmological principle is correct and the effect of distant matter is negligible because what little effect there is from various directions, cancels out.

This article claims no need to invoke a dark matter component in the Milky way was needed and I find it more credible:

www.universetoday.com...

So just to be clear I'm not objecting to the idea of no dark matter, I'm objecting to the methodology and false assumptions used to get there in the case of the theory mentioned in the OP article.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So the first problem: he's using math which assumes the effect of faraway matter cancels out, and he's not assuming it cancels out. But the second paragraph is an even larger problem:

the idea that einstiens field equations also work at large distences is not new,

If you can't decide if the sign is supposed to be + or -, that's a pretty big problem. In other words, is the outside matter speeding up, or slowing down the rotation? It seems somewhat idiotic to say it's doing both, don't you agree?

i do agree with how you phrased that but if in context, to change the + and get a slowing rotational factor consistent with observations of slowing rotational periods, means that there could be a corrilation between speeding up and slowing down in a direct fixed relationship why else could substituting one sign change the expected rotation?

I think you have to pick a sign and decide whether the outside matter is speeding up, or slowing down the rotation. The latter is the more likely of those two options, but the most likely option is that the cosmological principle is correct and the effect of distant matter is negligible because what little effect there is from various directions, cancels out.

well i like that some one has thought outside the box,
the cosmological principal is not a fact and is still theory,

how did you come to the conclusion einstien was right about his cosmo principal,
considering the latest results from observations have cast doubt on that being the case.
?

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
i do agree with how you phrased that but if in context, to change the + and get a slowing rotational factor consistent with observations of slowing rotational periods, means that there could be a corrilation between speeding up and slowing down in a direct fixed relationship

why else could substituting one sign change the expected rotation?

Changing the sign DOESN'T change the rotation. It doesn't change anything except the forumla that's attempting to model nature.

And with two different signs, it's actually two different formulae.

To illustrate how dumb this idea is, imagine the gravitational equation worked with two different signs.

If you're on Earth the attractive force has a positive sign so you feel the earth pulling down on you.

Then if you go to Mars and the attractive force had a negative sign, then you would be repelled into space if you tried to stand on the surface of Mars. That seems ridiculous, doesn't it?

Natural laws just aren't that fickle.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


ok i have finally found the dwarf galaxy article

Instead of being uniformly distributed around the Milky Way, the dwarf galaxies orbit in a plane - almost like a set of planets. The group's calculations show that these galaxettes can't contain any dark matter - but then, observations of the orbital speed of the same shows that they MUST contain dark matter, as the extant material isn't enough to explain their velocities.

sorry about the source quality HERE

and following on from along the same path of thought
the discovery of "spherical bubbles" around galaxies

so concidering the new information.....

Galaxies are the birthplaces of stars, each with a dense, visible central core and a huge envelope, or halo, around it containing extremely low-density gases. Until now, most of the mass in the envelope, as much as 90 percent of all mass in a galaxy, was undetectable by any instrument on Earth.

But Hubble's sensitive new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), the only one of its kind, has dramatically improved the quality of information regarding the gaseous envelope of galaxies, Tripp says. This huge gain in precision is one of the enormous accomplishments of the COS mission. "Even 10 years ago, most of the mass of a galaxy was invisible to us and such detailed investigations were impossible." the UMass Amherst astronomer points out. "With COS, in a sense we now have the ability to see the rest of the iceberg, not just the tip. This is a very exciting time to be an astronomer."

link to source HERE

so when you combine the two,

you get a "bubble halo" around the galaxy and a "bubble halo" around the dwarf galaxy,

if there was some form of "bubble to bubble" interaction,

then the angular momentium can be shared by both galaxy and dwarf,
this allows for a situation of no Dark Matter AND the need for Dark Matter at the same time

angular momentum can be "exchaned" between the velocity and rotational period of both galaxies, and would also explain the orbital "plane" these galaxies inhabit



xploder

reply to post by Arbitrageur


here is a study that concludes the cosmological principal may require a retink

But a few recent studies have found the possible existence of cosmological anisotropy: specifically, that the universe’s expansion is accelerating at a faster rate in one direction than another. In the most recent study, scientists have analyzed data from 557 Type 1a supernovae and found, in agreement with some previous studies, that the universe’s expansion seems to be accelerating faster in the direction of a small part of the northern galactic hemisphere.

link to source

so if crrect the cosmological principal "may" be incorrect

xploder

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It isn't that bad.

He starts with a flat universe(uses a linear approximation) and then works with a random mass distribution at galaxy scale. At a local scale things are still smooth, effect is negligible. The (in principle) possible sign change in the equation comes from the fact that he is dealing with an unknown mass distribution.

At the end he states that galaxies with a steeper rotation decay(negative sign) has been observed, without giving an example(unfortunately).

reply to post by MeesterB


While your statement at first appears to hold water, you must understand that the overwhelming majority of galaxies are too far away to have their rotational characteristics studied effectively. Instead, we compare the most distant ones to the ones that are closer and simultaneously more well known. This man should have no problem with his theories.

Your statement began to sound like you thought that science understood every galaxy and its characteristics.

reply to post by stAtrill


I'm not an idiot. Of course we don't know all about every galaxy. I was just making the point that you can't assume something works just because it works for a few cases.