It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RationalDespair
Okay, sounds interesting, but wouldn´t the "flipping" of the galaxies also require more mass than accounted for?
Just asking, I don´t know a lot of specifics about the topic.
Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by swan001
Yes, that´s what I understand as well, but a galaxy is not a coin and the stars in the galaxy would tend to "break loose" from the galaxy by the flipping movement, right? Is there enough mass in a galaxy to counter this by gravitational forces, or does that require more mass, as is the case with high speed orbits around the center of a galaxy?
Originally posted by darkbake
I didn't know you were so well-versed in physics and astrophysics, this is a very interesting idea, and I follow it completely.
For some reason, I am thinking along the lines of additional momentum being accounted for by additional velocity instead of additional mass.
( momentum = mass x velocity )
( mass: amount of stuff)
(velocity: speed, taking into account direction)edit on 19-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Americanist
Mass is poorly understood within the Standard Model mindset... The concept you propose is complicating matters more so. Try the following explanation:
Post
Originally posted by yampa
Redshifting is something that happens to our observed data. Redshift does not change the properties of local objects. Therefore it cannot account for the observed missing mass in the universe.
The missing mass is missing because current dogma doesn't allow us to give mass to something which already exists in our equations and observations?edit on 19-11-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by yampa
Redshifting is something that happens to our observed data. Redshift does not change the properties of local objects. Therefore it cannot account for the observed missing mass in the universe.
You are seeing this in reverse. The properties of local object changes the redshift. If something speeds away from you, it'll redshift. If it speeds toward you, it'll blueshift. The same goes for disc flipping. If one side flips toward you, it'll blueshift. If it the other side speeds away, it'll redshift.
Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by yampa
Photons, I presume? If so, I agree.
Originally posted by yampa
no, the data emitting or being reflected from that object will red or blueshift. The object does not change just because you perceive a distorted signal.
Originally posted by swan001
No, photons are all accounted for.
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by Americanist
Mass is poorly understood within the Standard Model mindset... The concept you propose is complicating matters more so. Try the following explanation:
Post
That's actually an interesting idea!
Although I must add that gravity is a long-range force, as forces in an atom are short-ranged. That means laws will be a bit different.
Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by swan001
No, photons are not accounted for, since their mass is presumed to be zero, which I disagree with.
I don´t want to derail this thread in any way, so back to the flipping galaxies: I can see this happening easy; I don´t think they translate linearly either, but I question that it would account for so much "missing" mass...