ATT - Anti Translation Theory: Maybe Most Of Galactic Mass Is Already Accounted For!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
actually, I think I might have misinterpreted what you said. What you are saying is that we don't need to account for extra mass because we've miscalculated the amount of red shift due to the fact that galaxies have other degrees of motion contributing to the shift?

Sounds pretty good to me. But then, I don't have any great knowledge of how the original estimates were made anyway.




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
actually, I think I might have misinterpreted what you said. What you are saying is that we don't need to account for extra mass because we've miscalculated the amount of red shift due to the fact that galaxies have other degrees of motion contributing to the shift?


That's it! Precisely!



Sounds pretty good to me. But then, I don't have any great knowledge of how the original estimates were made anyway.


Yeah, we would need the figures about galaxy's core vs sides area redshift, and even redshift variants in the sides area. So far I don't have access to these figures, I don't even know if they published it.
edit on 19-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
A perfect translation:



Seems to me you are picturing this wrong. When the rotation of a galaxy is perpendicular to the earth, there will be no variation of redshift. Only when the rotation is in line with the earth we can see variation in redshift.

Besides, as someone already mentioned, when the galaxy is flipping instead of spinning, you still encounter the same problem: where is the mass that is responsible for the gravity that holds together the stars.

And you will have additional big problems explaining the shape of the galaxies if they really are flipping.

In conclusion, your theory does not solve the problem and adds more problems.
edit on 19-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think also you assume wrongly what you say astrophysics assumes.

Firstly, the extra mass is inferred because we observe that gas and stars that are in the outermost parts of the galaxies is redshifted/blue shifted too much as you state. But what you are talking about is a 2nd or 3rd order effect, and scientists have looked at many many galaxies at different orientations, all show the same pattern.

If what you are proposing and there is a huge effect from the tumbling or swinging motion of the galaxies then the effect is going to be largely random over the sample... what i mean by this is that, the extra swinging or tumbling motion will occur with the direction of travel, and against it. You diagram shows the swing being counter clockwise as an example... well why couldnt the swing be clockwise? you might say... oh well orbital momentum... but my problem with that is if the galaxy has most of its orbital momentum along a disk... then you are adding large orbital momentum perpendicular to this and saying that this motion is of a similar order to the orbital momentum in the disk... Wouldn't that just give you an elliptical galaxy? over time?


So you are essensially saying that pretty much the vast majority of galaxies rotate and twist in exactly the same way, with the same degree? sorry to say but it sounds too contrived, and i think if it was the case, the extra motion would actually cancel and we would see rotation curves that look approximately like you would expect them classically.

Also does this fix what we see as enormous tails in mass distribution when we unfold the lensing from galaxy clusters? How does this explain things like the Bullet cluster?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
So you are essensially saying that pretty much the vast majority of galaxies rotate and twist in exactly the same way, with the same degree?

Nope, I just gave an example in my OP, but the flipping and angle and momentum will be unique for each different galaxies. That's the reason why galaxies are randomly inclined and flipped in the Universe:


The "tumbling", the "flipping" of a galaxy is a very real movement, and with each movements comes a degree of momentum. This degree is absolutely variable, unique to each galaxies.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
When the rotation of a galaxy is perpendicular to the earth, there will be no variation of redshift.

Exactly! Then why does a side redshift has been observed? That means, it comes from another movement than rotation.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
But that is my point,

If the tumbling is unique and random, then the effect you describe would completely cancel out the high velocity observed at high r.

Also this tumbling motion can be applied to the movement of stars, in binary systems, and while yes it is an unknown and does add a systematic to the measurement, the effect is a 2nd or 3rd order one and does not account for missing mass. The tuning of models has been performed for many years based on mostly edge on galaxies... And astronomy can tell if a galaxy has a twisting motion by looking at the red and blue shift of galaxies that are face on to us... this effect has not been reported to be an enormous one as far as i am aware.

People have been looking for a long time for this, and if it was such an effect it would have been spotted by now, the motions of galaxies in clusters is of great interest, and we have the instruments capable of looking at exactly what you suggest... and iv never heard of anything more significant than what would be a 2nd or 3rd order effect.

This tumbling or sweeping effect would be very visible when looking at both redshifted and blueshifted components, it would also be visible in dwarf galaxies that are coupled to the disc galaxies (they all have them) and as far as i am aware, this does not pose an enormous effect as you describe.
edit on 21-11-2012 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


You can't physically see a disc tumbling, or flipping. It's too slow, you would need to keep record over super-long time. The only way we know there are movement at all is because we detected redshift anomaly. But no one can confirm if this redshift is due to orbital, or tumbling movement. If you see a redshift anomaly on a galaxy which is exactly 90 degree relative to us, then it means the redshift is due to tumbling, as orbits would not register red/blue shift.

I am confused by your "2nd effect order". Could you explain more please. I am sure a tumbling can be considered as a major motion in a galaxy. Look at the Virgo cluster; there is so much tumbling you see galaxies all titled in all angles.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Do you have a source for this?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by swan001
 


Do you have a source for this?


A source for what?
For the fact that the disc of a galaxy has more than 2 degrees of motion in our 3-dimensional universe; that no galaxy follow a perfect translation? Well, for now it seems nobody else considered triaxial movement influence over redshift, as I did. That's why I put ATT up for you all.


edit on 22-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


A source that shows that galaxies that are perpendicular to our view (so you see a perfect disc, not an ellipse) still shows internal variation in redshift. If your theory has any merit, this should be the case.
edit on 22-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
My point is... if you look at a disc galaxy that is face on, you cannot work out the rotation at all, but any movement of the disk in a tumbling pattern or sweeping pattern will show up... IE the if the disk was rotating you would see the top of it red shifted and the bottom blue, if indeed the galaxy was rotating against its axis of spin.

By 2nd and 3rd order i mean a minor correction, this terminology is often used to describe predictions and theories.

So a zero order effect is very large, 1st order effect is a significant correction to the zero, but not one that is as large as that in magnitude, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc are even smaller still.

absolutely the tumbling is happening, yes it is probably extremely slow, but i do not see how this tumbling is significant enough to be the solution. It really only accounts for matter in the disk, what about dwarf galaxies that orbit disks? these too orbit with velocity above what is expected.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


A source that shows that galaxies that are perpendicular to our view (so you see a perfect disc, not an ellipse) still shows internal variation in redshift. If your theory has any merit, this should be the case.

I agree, that's the only way to know if ATT is right or wrong. But, as I said, I don't know where to look for that data on galactic internal redshift variation... I'll have to make more profound Google searches when I'll have more time. As you say, we have to look for data on absolutely face-on (perpendicular) only galaxies. I think there's one in Ursa Major constelation... I am sure there's one of these in Virgo or Berenice anyway.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


My point is... if you look at a disc galaxy that is face on, you cannot work out the rotation at all, but any movement of the disk in a tumbling pattern or sweeping pattern will show up...

Precisely. It will show up as super- or under-redshift, relative to the mean redshift. That's my point too, as it is the implication of ATT.


It really only accounts for matter in the disk, what about dwarf galaxies that orbit disks? these too orbit with velocity above what is expected.

It doesn't just apply for matter in the disc, it applies for everything which orbits the galaxy's core, including the disc. As most of what we see is a disc, I talked only about the disc in my OP. But the truth is, anything which orbits the galaxy will follow the galaxy's motion in space.

Think about it... how do we know that those dwarf galaxies orbit with an apparent excess of velocity in the first place? That's because we registered the same redshift anomaly on them as we registered on the stars in the disc. We can't physically see an object (may it be matter or dwarf galaxy) orbit a galaxy. So when we saw that redshift anomaly, we "blamed" it on orbital speed, forgetting that galaxies have triaxial movements in space.

As a galaxy travels, its disc tumbles, tilt, flips. That disc is made of matter and stars orbiting the core. That implies that anything which orbits the core will follow that tumble, may it be stars, matter, or dwarf galaxies.

What I am saying, put simply, is that we have a fact:

-As redshift anomaly has been observed in the disc and dwarf galaxies orbiting a given galaxy.

Now, mainstream interpretation is,

-This redshift anomaly means stars in the disc and orbiting dwarf galaxies have a higher orbital velocity than expected. As this velocity is now incompatible with observed galaxy's mass, this mainstream interpretation also needs the galaxy to have 83% more mass for that said mainstream interpretation to work.

ATT interpretation is,

-This redshift anomaly doesn't mean stars in the disc and orbiting dwarf galaxies have a higher orbital velocity than expected - it means the galactic plane, which supports these orbits, tumbles, thus generating a previously un-considered angular momentum which itself can be the cause of this redshift anomaly. As the orbits velocities are now compatible with observed galaxy's mass, searches for "hidden mass" is not required anymore. ATT predicts that face-on (whose disc is perpendicular to our view) galaxies will still register redshift anomalies.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


All motion can be described as a sum of linear and angular motion of the center of mass. For the motion you propose the mass center would lie outside of the galaxy. You would see it in the rotation curve. It would also affect the shape of the galaxy I think.

How galactic rotational velocity is measured: www.haystack.mit.edu...



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
For the motion you propose the mass center would lie outside of the galaxy.


I find that hard to believe. My galaxy-flipping theory is no different from what happens to our own solar system: It flips, as it travels around the galaxy core. The solar system is currently flipped on an angle of about 45 degrees (I don't have my cosinus calculator with me) relative to the galactic equator, and so far our sun have stayed the central mass of our solar system. If what you said above would be true, then our solar system would be no more.

Isn't possible that one side's (of the galaxy disc, as it tumbles/flips) angular momentum is compensated by the other side's angular momentum (which goes in opposite direction), thus restoring the gravity center of the flipping galaxy in its centre?

Thanks for the link, gonna check it out now.
edit on 23-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius


How galactic rotational velocity is measured: www.haystack.mit.edu...


Mate, the link you provided weren't measurement of redshift anomaly on a given face-on (whose rotation is perpendicular to our line of observation) galaxies. The measurements were in the kpc range, and galaxies are in the bilion light-years range. The measurements were about our own sun, relative to other points in our own galaxy, and uses a Vlsr which relies on rest, aka only if all matter (here hydrogen) in galaxies had no velocity; but, as you know, as two objects which have the same velocity and direction would not register any redshift relative to each other, these (in fact moving) object could be wrongfully considered as Vlsr.
And, it doesn't confirm neither deny ATT, as it says nothing about triaxial's third angular momentum of galaxies, which is currently the topic of this thread.

This thread is about the galactic disc flip's effect upon redshift anomaly. The only way to confirm or falsify it is by observing other galaxies, as measurements inside our galaxy about third axis of movement is impossible - you can't go out of it and observe it from the outside, see?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

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...


It wouldn't. I am saying you wouldn't need to search for more mass: as discs are flipping, it means observed arm redshift is not due to star orbit speed up, but to disc shift away from us.



It would look different then. When you saw a disc face-on you would see a red and blueshift on the various faces, and this is independent of the rotation of the stars in that galaxy's disc, and hence irrelevant to the question of gravitation and mass-distribution in that galaxy.

I suspect that the first time people started doing data analysis on this issue, probably 30 or 40 years ago, it would have been obvious.

My guess as a physicist (though without actual knowledge of practices in this area) is that the astronomers would have collected a variety of relative red and blueshifts for a galaxy and then fitted a plausible model to the observations which included, as free parameters, the components of the angular velocity of the overall rotation axis itself, in addition to the disc terms which are the interesting ones. Astronomers are very good at statistical data analysis and model fitting, they have to do it all the time.

Think about it for a minute. It's 1970 or so. You are the first group to consider this problem: you just want to *measure* the rotation curves of galaxies. At the moment your idea of 'dark matter' is just plain ordinary neutrons, protons and electrons because you don't know anything else exists out there except neutrinos and they don't matter. You somehow get your data by painstaiking analysis and spectroscopy of pieces of galaxies as imaged. Now you analyze it. How are you going to get quantitative numbers for the rotation curve? Just a little bit of thinking shows that you have to take into account variability in the axis.

In other words, there's no possible way that the astronomers wouldn't have seen this and taken it into account already decades ago because of the observation of many different galaxies in all sorts of relative orientations. Otherwise if they didn't take this into account, none of the data would have made sense and they wouldn't have been able to derive observations which show a consistent anomalous pattern.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
When you saw a disc face-on you would see a red and blueshift on the various faces, and this is independent of the rotation of the stars in that galaxy's disc, and hence irrelevant to the question of gravitation and mass-distribution in that galaxy.


Yes, that's my point exactly. But its relevance is very real, as all we know about "missing mass" inside other galaxy is due to this redshift anomalies. If these anomalies were generated by a flipping of the disc instead of a rotational velocity surplus, then all our searches for "missing mass" would be un-necessary (or, at least, less necessary). That's why ATT could be confirmed if redshift anomaly is still observed on face-on galaxies.

I know that we could assume astronomers included non-translation galactic movement in their model. But, on the other hand, we used to assume alot of things.
Before we discovered nuclear energy, we basically had no idea what fuel the Sun runs on. All we knew was chemical combustion. But chemical combustion meant that either the Sun has a very small lifespan, or else that some fuel was missing, or escaping, our observation. Here you see a great analogy with our current "missing mass" problem.

Of course, it seems obvious to you and me that this angle of movement has to be considered when building a model. But the question is, did it seemed obvious to these astronomers too, back in the 70's? That was only 20 years after Hubble discovered that the position of the galaxies weren't static. Did it seemed obvious, to the people in the 70's, that not only were the galaxies rushing away from us, undergoing orbital rotation, but also moving in a non-translational manner, upon a third axis which can be both 1) hard to discern from (assumed) orbital redshift and 2) inclined at random direction?

I personally found no literature about consideration of this third movement's influence upon anomalistic redshift measurement. I am not 100% certain that they (the astronomers back then) considered it. Maybe they did, but "maybe they did" and assumptions about what astronomers did in the 70's is not enough to build an (assumed) missing-mass theory upon it.

ATT is real. No galaxies travel in a perfect translation. It's just logic. Mass distribution inside a system with more than one body will always be imperfect. Which means, one side is bound to present more inertia.

But again, as Hubble analyzed the spectrum of galaxies (he probably started with the Virgo Supercluster) and discovered they had a rushing-away motion, Messier watched those same galaxies a couple of centuries ago, and thought that those same galaxies were immobile, forever frozen at random angle in space.

We must explore all possibilities before starting searching for something... just in case this "something" doesn't exist in the first place.
edit on 28-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


What is not explained adequately is the universal temperature. There is a theory that the temperature was established at the big bang. I don't buy it. I think it is universal because all the visible universe is in the same area. That it is larger than we expect.

I think that the expanding universe is also a bad theory because then our solar system, our galaxy would be expanding as well. Since it is not, yet has dark matter making up its skeleton of sorts, and dark energy is everywhere, we should all be expanding as well. Gravity does not affect dark energy, and it is over 70% of the universe right? Then our solar system as well as all the galaxies should be tearing themselves apart. The expediential rate that the universe expands the farther out you go is also not adequately explained.


The fact that it is not suggests that our view is limited to our area within the universe.

I look at it like oil suspended in water in a large glass bowl.

We are a tiny blotch of oil and can only measure our position and the size of the bowl by the blotches we are able to see, that are close to us. That does not suggest that the bowl is as large as the blotches near us, and what we see is true for the whole bowl. It just means that our blotch of oil and those around us might be moving because something stirred the bowl. The other blotches farther away in the bowl might be clumping together on the other side of the bowl we can't see.

Ultimately I see the universe as a large sphere where the outside is consuming the interior, and when it does so completely, it simply flows back around to the center. Rinses and repeats.

In my idea of how it all works there is always a big bang. That each is different and each is more or less a contraction of the matter in the universe followed by an expansion. Whenever our part of the bowl gets the spoon that stirs it all.....

It would explain the universal temperature. It would also explain why as far as we can see, the end of our "blotch" seems to be expanding faster than the area of our "blotch" around us.
edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join