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
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
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
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)