reply to post by ErosA433
I am not sure that a single galaxy constitutes a reversal on a theory till many others could be located.
In fact there is possibly many more of these DM-less galaxies. Most elleptical galaxies yielded no data on their rotation curve. So there is a
probability most of them don't have DM neither. But their mass is still within computable boundaries (this is known because measurement of their
gravitational lensing). As this astrophysicist suggested, it may be that DM as such doesn't really exist - just baryonic matter, but whose
invisibility from here made it look as if some was missing. In this article, ''DM'' refers to baryonic non-observed normal matter:
What you say regarding a singularity is true, though the singularity is very confined, it doesn't spread out for 100s of thousands of light
Yeah, but you know what they say... That gravitational force is proportional to the inverse-square of the distance. It can become weak at large
distance, but it can virtually never reach absolute zero. The singularity's dramatic mass may be confined at the Milky Way's core, but it is still
enough account for some of our star's velocities. Isn't it possible that even a small G field would bend light, and this new angle would dramatically
show on our telescopes as lensing, bilions of light-years away? As small as an angle can be, it still magnifies with distance. If a strong field can
bend light, and such field can never reach absolute zero, then it's conceivable that even weaker fields would bend light by a very small (but real)
Remember, the inner bulges of galaxies actually behave how we expect them to. even the stars around the galactic centre behave correctly when
applying relative corrections because of the high velocities... The whole point of the 'Dark Matter Halo' is that over a short distance such as
between the galactic centre and its nearest stars, it plays little to no role... it is only when you move to larger distances.
Yes, you're right. But Dark Matter doesn't explain why this Dark Matter didn't accumulate at the galaxy's bulge in the first place. It still interacts
with gravity, yet it doesn't follow gravitational law?... It's not dark energy, it's dark matter. Something is missing (pun unintended).
Maybe a gravitational standing wave is being generated from the core and creates this velocity curve? Maybe stars would interpret this standing wave
as a ring of potential energy.
Spirals in a galaxy are not something physical, more over the represent regions in which blue stars are forming, these stars are quite short
lived so the spiral actually propagates around a galaxy faster than the stars rotate. this has been known for years.
I know that's what it has been agreed since Immanuel Kant. I also know now that the Sun motion was based on CMB and/or nearby star motion. The latter
being not a very reliable ways to deduce direction of motion. If you are on a straight road, along with a car which follows behind you, and suddenly
you both take a right turn, measuring your position relative to the other car behind you cannot be a reliable way to know if you turned or not. But
even then, mainstream astrometry deduced that the Sun is NOT currently moving at 90 degrees relative to the Core, but at 60 degrees relative to the
Core. Doesn't that imply that the Sun is at a minimum of 30 degree trajectory towards the Core? It could even be more, since we can't relie on our
immediate neighboors's relative motion. That's roughly a spiralling down trajectory, not an orbital one.
Near A*, matter is actually spiralling down, but we just don't know at what rate. Luckily, a nebula is closing in and will soon enter the event
horizon. That should give us a good idea of how much important is this spiralling down rate.
My hypothesis is that, Elleptical galaxies are younger. The galaxy in my OP is young, and has all velocities and mass accounted for. Yet, in older
galaxies such as ours, something is forcing stars to augment velocity. Can't we deduce that it may be possible that young galaxies, with a smaller
event horizon, will have near-circular stars orbits (and, thus, an elleptical shape), while older galaxies will have a bigger event horizon, which
will upset orbits due to greater G pull, thus modifying circular orbits to spiralling down orbits? And the fate of all galaxies would be to be
consumed by the central, expanding black hole (which would then slowly evaporate due to entropy rise)? An easy way to verify that is to check the Crab
Nebula and see if one side of its 3-D oval shape is colser ot us than the other. It's the closest and most recent supernova cloud i can think of.
BTW sorry for the rather lenghty reply.
edit on 4-5-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)