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 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?
Sounds pretty good to me. But then, I don't have any great knowledge of how the original estimates were made anyway.
Originally posted by swan001
A perfect translation:
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?
Originally posted by -PLB-
When the rotation of a galaxy is perpendicular to the earth, there will be no variation of redshift.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by swan001
Do you have a source for this?
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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by moebius
For the motion you propose the mass center would lie outside of the galaxy.
Originally posted by moebius
How galactic rotational velocity is measured: www.haystack.mit.edu...
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.
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.