posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:37 PM
Originally posted by swan001
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
Question: have you ever been to graduate school in the physical sciences?
Yes, it would have been obvious. As in, say, the kind of question that a graduate student would have heard when presenting his dissertation proposal
to the committee, "How are you going to take into account all the possible degrees of freedom in the rotations?"
And if the investigator didn't do this, then when he attempted to analyze the data, there would be a bad fit to the model, until this effect is taken
into account, and then, you see a consistent pattern across many galaxies and a paper is born.
At some point somebody had to sketch and equation for the observed redshift, and tie it back into the model parameters and thinking about that a
little bit, representing a star as a sum of galaxy-centric coordinates plus the galaxy's motion itself, would yield the answer.
And if all else failed, then at least one peer reviewer would have questioned the paper writer about this point about the data reduction section.
People who are doing scientific research for real, as in their paid job, think about a problem for months and years, and are working brains-on with
the data in their notebooks and computers all the the time.
edit on 28-11-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)