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

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
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.


Galaxies are held together by gravity and so are solar systems. The effects of dark energy only become apparent when the gravitational force is negligible. (i.e. between galaxies)




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


dark matter has gravitational force and is intertwined around galaxies, or so they say. It is measurable by the distortion it makes on light. It is like the framework of galaxies. Its gravitational force keeps galaxies together. The matter within is bound to itself in the same way, but dark matter is the overall force. It exists in greater quantities than regular matter and is clustered around it.

Dark energy is said to be the force pushing everything apart. It is then not present within galaxies and interacts with dark matter, not regular matter.
edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
Dark energy is said to be the force pushing everything apart. It is then not present within galaxies and interacts with dark matter, not regular matter.
edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)


I never heard of a theory that states that the force of dark energy has no effect one visible matter. I can be wrong though but it kind of does not make sense to me. Do you have a source that confirms your statement?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


well if it did, then it would rip the galaxies apart. If it does not exist within them, I say ( no source sorry) that it would not be attracted to matter the way dark matter is. It would exist within galaxies and would be overcoming the gravity of all matter. It seems to me that if everything we know is true, that it has no effect on matter. It seems to just overcome the gravitational hold of dark matter by making the distance between each galaxies grow.

If not it would be attracted to matter the way dark matter is. I don't think it repels matter but just that it can increase its concentration between galaxies and so break the hold they have on each other by increasing the distance between them.

Like filling a jar of beans with water. It is not that the water reacts to the beans, just that it fills the available space between them, spacing them apart.

Having infinite room just makes it fill that space between matter. Matter still has the same hold through gravity, just that it is limited in the reach of the space it can distort, where as dark energy has no limit to the space it can occupy.

edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
well if it did, then it would rip the galaxies apart. If it does not exist within them, I say ( no source sorry) that it would not be attracted to matter the way dark matter is. It would exist within galaxies and would be overcoming the gravity of all matter. It seems to me that if everything we know is true, that it has no effect on matter. It seems to just overcome the gravitational hold of dark matter, making the distance between each galaxies grow.


Gravity holds galaxies in one piece. Sure dark energy counters it a bit, but the gravitational force is much larger within galaxies, so the force coming from dark energy is negligible. It would not overcome gravity.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


yeah I agree. Dark energy does not overcome gravity. gravity still has the same strength no matter how much dark energy there is, and there is allot more of it supposedly. Dark energy just fills the space between galaxies and so makes the distance grow. The space around matter is distorted by gravity. That reach of distortion depends on the density of the matter. Matter´s gravitational distortion , when it does not reach another gravitational distortion, the link is broken. When the distortion does not reach other forces of gravity, dark energy fills the space. It does not react to gravity or matter. It simply fills the space between gravitational distortions.

Within galaxies, there is no such space with zero gravitational force, so it does not make galaxies expand.

Like water flooding into all available crevices. It is not attracted to them, nor does it repel anything, it simply expands into them where possible.

dark energy is like water IMO. It may even have a sort of pressure on matter. I don't think it repels matter, just that matter is concentrated in it naturally like a bubble of air in water. Matter reacts to dark energy, while dark energy does not react to matter.

edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


I don't see why dark energy would be limited to space between galaxies only. As far as I found there is no observation pointing in that direction, and dark energy is everywhere, even on earth. On what exactly do you base this idea?
edit on 28-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


it is not. It is projected to exist everywhere matter does not. Over 70+% of the available space.
Matter just bonds together, leaving no room for it.

Dark energy has not been found on earth. Not even dark matter has. If it is a particle, then we have yet to discover it in our realm.
edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz


it is not. It is projected to exist everywhere matter does not. Over 70+% of the available space.
Matter just bonds together, leaving no room for it.


First time I hear of this, so I will keep stressing for a source.


Dark energy has not been found on earth. Not even dark matter has. If it is a particle, then we have yet to discover it in our realm.


But the reason for this is because its interaction with matter is very weak. Not because it isn't there. At least, that's how I understand it. Its weak interaction also results in it being everywhere, as matter isn't stopping it. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.
edit on 28-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
You want to understand how the mass of the Universe is distributed and accounted for... just watch the following lecture.



why is that lecture so long?

should have taken 5 seconds at most... "universe came from nothing, universe is nothing"



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

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 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?


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)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
You would know that your theory doesn't fit the data if you ever looked at a single galactic rotation curve derived from spectroscopic observation. Not to mention that it would require that every spiral galaxy we've every observed be "flipping" in the same manner relative to the Earth, nor does your theory make any contact whatsoever with velocity dispersions as observed in elliptical galaxies, virial velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing due to dark matter, baryonic acoustic oscillations in the microwave background, or lensing observations in cluster mergers.

I no longer believe that you are an actual astronomer...



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


You don't believe that galaxies are flipping?



This pic show galaxy tilted in all possible manner. No galaxy will make a perfect translation, due to the fact that its mass distribution is never perfect, thus, one side will always have more inertia.

I specified that no, galaxies flipping will be random, the example I gave in my OP was just an example.

Funnily, my theory predicts the existence of elliptical galaxies, too. Galaxies which have a higher velocities, in an angle which is perpendicular to the disc, will create an ellipse.
edit on 29-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



gravitational lensing due to dark matter

How can you know if it's dark matter lensing it, if we never observed dark matter, just the lensing?
edit on 29-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

I know how the system works. The problem is, these papers (if there was any at all) on galactic triaxial movement consideration over anomalistic redshift observation, and then their review, should have left traces in literature. But it did not. No one seemed to ever even talked about it. Sure, I saw some papers on redshift anomaly, and then, some papers on galactic triaxial movement. But so far, I never came across any papers merging both triaxial movement consideration with anomalistic redshift anomaly. "Maybe that's because this possibility is wrong", you could argue. But to that I shall point out, that early models of the atoms were all wrong, yet it is still heavily documented. That the existence of aether is all wrong, yet it is still heavily documented.

You said that disc tumbling was probably considered when attempting to explain anomalistic redshift measurement. Could you please prove it to me? Honestly, if only you could find these papers, and back your claims, it could really help us to determine if we have or have not made a mistake in attributing redshift anomaly to orbital velocity.

As me and this gentleman, -PLB-, determined in page 2, a quicker way (instead of trying to find out who said what, when and how) to decide if ATT is right or not, is simply by finding data on anomalistic redshift measurements upon face-on galaxies (which, according to mainstream interpretation, would not be expected to show any anomalies - if an anomaly is found, then ATT is right). If you happen to have that data, please share it with us.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


why is that lecture so long?

should have taken 5 seconds at most... "universe came from nothing, universe is nothing"


Dunno. All I know is that I'm on dial-up.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


Dark energy is said to be energy which is present even in total vacuum. That means, even in the solar system will one have "dark energy".

ZedVSzardoz (geez, that's a weird name!), you're right about the fact that dark energy is present inside our own galaxy, and should theoretically make our own galaxy expand, just as the rest of the universe expands. But gravity, inside this galaxy, will create some sort of a lens effect, a gravitational "bowl", in which objects in the said galaxy will escape expansion law. Anywhere else in the universe, space will expand, as no gravity is present there (well, almost none).

-PLB-, the way dark energy works, according to what I learned, is that its energy will make space itself (on which matter "sits") expand in a positive way, just like gravity bends space-time in a negative way. Thus, dark energy "pushes" galaxy apart... but it really just expands space between them.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
what if every thing is shrinking!
and not expanding.
could we tell the differences?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
How can you know if it's dark matter lensing it, if we never observed dark matter, just the lensing?
edit on 29-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


You can see the lensing, and you can see the galaxy clusters responsible for the lensing. There isn't enough visible matter to account for the degree of lensing. What, then, do you conclude?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

You can see the lensing, and you can see the galaxy clusters responsible for the lensing. There isn't enough visible matter to account for the degree of lensing. What, then, do you conclude?


Well, did they counted the giant black hole inside each of those galaxies? As I am sure you know, black holes have a slight tendency to bend space.

There already is a theory about black holes accounting for missing mass, you know.


The Frampton conclusion is that dark matter is made up of black holes with a mass of between 10^6 and 10^-8 solar masses that were created during two periods of inflation. The first led to the large scale structure of the universe that we see and has been measured by spacecraft such as WMAP. The second led to the lumping that created large numbers of medium-sized primordial black holes.

www.dailygalaxy.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
what if every thing is shrinking!
and not expanding.
could we tell the differences?


You would see a general blueshift in galaxies...

But again, when we look at galaxies, we usually don't see them as they are in the present, we see them as they were billion of years ago. It is assumed that they are still redshifted today.





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join