It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Because that is the implication when you say "As an opponent to Dark Matter theory".
There is something out there we don't understand, and it is a gravitational effect. We call it dark matter because we are kind of clueless.
It seems that you are acknowledging the existance of dark matter here, as you acknowledge a difference between the galaxies in you OP without certain anomalies and other galaxies with these anomalies.
Maybe your thread title should have said "Sorry, dark matter not always observed" or along those lines.
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by swan001
"Science" means "knowledge" (sciencia). If you "believe" in Dark Matter, it's not "knowledge", thus it is not "science". Only assumption.
Dark matter scientists won't stop trying to prove that dark matter exists until their funding dries up or they acknowledge that their understanding of physics may be flawed.
In the meantime, they are determined to make the universe fit their theory.
Dark Matter as proposed is diffuse, it is not dense like a star is dense, the effect of it goes with the cube (volume effect) so at the core of a galaxy, there is a balance that you point out goes with the square, thus if you have a singularity at the core, that will dominate the rotation of the stars around it, far greater than the effect of dark matter, which you (and many others) seem to forget or ignore that the stars are almost swimming in. So the gravitational effect pulling a star inwards becomes larger than you expect for a normal r^2 relationship.
So if you have a small elliptical galaxy, in my opinion it is not a surprise at all that the rotations are probably matching well to what you expect from baryonic matter.
Elliptical galaxies are characterized by several properties that make them distinct from other classes of galaxy. The motion of stars in elliptical galaxies is predominantly radial, unlike the disks of spiral galaxies, which are dominated by rotation.
ooooh yes an elliptical orbit, so yes the sun does not have to have a orbit that is 90degrees to the core, 30 degrees towards? so what? that doesn't mean conclusively that it has to be spiralling in towards the sun anymore than other stars in the local group.
You also accuse Astronomers of great ignorance which is quite frankly a little bit rich.
If you read astronomy, you will know that the proper motion of stars near to us have been studied and watched over the last two decades in greater and greater detail.
how little time scientists get to update the school text books, and how much of the reality has to be 'economized' to fit into the pitiful school curriculum.
They do after all perform galactic simulations and attempt to simulate the future of galaxy clusters...
Your point about the lensing effect of a singularity is also a moot one... look at this page
(...)is that dark matter? No, that is the singularity... Does it fall off with R^2... no, most fall off at R^2 up until the edges of the bulge
what you are saying for example that the Earth is effected by the gravitational field of Jupiter... yes, yes it is, but when you stand near to someone, you are pulled towards each other by your own gravitational fields more than you are pulled towards Jupiter.
Gravitational lensing is a small effect, but it is also an effect like any lens
Two decades. A bilion-years model based on a 20 years observation. Observations wich are called ''proper'' but are based on relative to us, throught CMB to us.
The issue taken is that much of what you say Swan001 is that you seem to suggest that scientists don't pursue all the possibilities.
what field are you in? what do you do?
how do you possibly know all this 'information' on what the people do
It is good to question, science is all about questioning, but your rhetoric is rather aggressively dismissive of current theory without in my opinion truly understanding that theory.
simply stating that you think it is wrong... is not enough, it is close to the others where it is said "I think this theory is wrong... you prove my statement incorrect"
Once more, since you are making all these statements on what galaxies are and what dark matter is, to have only just found out this information it really appears to me that you do not really see the big picture or have the learned background more than you have just read online just now....
this idea of 'the mainstream' is completely (and i am being frank) crap, it simply doesn't exist...
these scientists study because they love the field, love the science, they want to know things more than they want their salary...
people really should stop accusing everyone of some kind of dishonesty...
You should find, if you approach the issue correctly, many of them willing and happy to reply to you.
Yes there are many incomplete parts of theory, but to say something is incomplete and thus wrong and the scientists are being dumb and you are the keeper of the truth... is really ludicrous
These motions are corrected for our sun and Earth's motion, and looking through the CMB? Sooo what is the significance of the CMB really have on this? When you speak of relative motions, we are at a very long distance away, the centre of the galaxy doesn't move by very much, but since you are so knowledgable you would have good control over star maps, how to point telescopes, how to correct for relative motion of the stars and the sun and the Earth?
Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Perhaps no dark matter in that particle galaxy, but that does not mean there is no dark matter else where.
But still, good find. I find that galaxy rather interesting, might do some research on it. S&F.
Originally posted by ErosA433
So while now we haven't been there to take a look, or to every single galaxy... but the evidence for it is stark and pushes it from 'assumption' to 'almost certainly'
This is not the case, the Earth is not being sucked into the sun.
The moon is not being sucked into the Earth.
Not all stars and galaxies are moving away. Galaxies in our local group have all kinds of motions, same for the stars in the milky way. Andromeda is infact on a collision course with the milky way... thus that statement you and others keep making is invalid and incorrect.