Sorry - No Dark Matter!

Sorry - No Dark Matter!

Some galaxy (like elliptical) don't have Dark Matter at all. All normal mass is sufficient to explain velocities in those galaxies! Read this article from Newscientist:

Source

Which makes me wonder deeply, if Dark Matter doesn't exist in those galaxies, does it really exist here? Is Dark Matter real, or simply a misunderstanding of one of our spiral galaxy's mechanism?

As the orbital speed of our sun doesn't match newtonian laws (it seemingly goes at about 100 times faster than newtonian orbital speed), many astronomers decided to invent dark matter (not to confuse with dark energy, which was created to explain space inflation) to explain that "mass excess" in our galaxy (the sun's faster orbital speed means the Core around which the sun orbits had to be more massive, otherwise the sun wouldn't stay on orbit). To explain how come we don't see Dark Matter nebulas or patches in our sky, Dark Matter was said to interact with normal matter only through gravity force, and that way it would stay cloaked to all instruments.

As an opponent to Dark Matter theory, I recently proposed the possibility that our excess of velocity was caused by the fact that our stars may not be on perfect orbit trajectories (as more or less assumed by mainstream astronomers) around the Milky Way's core, but, instead be on an accelerating spiralling down trajectory towards the Milky Way's core (and this would happen in other spiral galaxies too).

This had the verifiable implication that the western (perseus-ward) part of the Crab nebula (Messier 1), in the Taurus constellation, would be closer to us than the eastern (orion-ward) part. M1 is a recent supernova debris nebula, and could act just like a drop of ink in a swirl of water, and let you see the direction of the swirl.

Is it possible spiral galaxies have a different (non-circular) orbit than those galaxies which has no Dark Matter, thus explaining both type of galaxies without ever invoking Mysterious Dark Matter?

Dark Matter proponents use for proof gravitational lensing in a galaxy. To which I pointed out that such lensing should be expected when one has an Einsteinian spacetime-deforming Singularity as its galactic core - a singularity which is by the way especially well fed in spiral galaxies...

Food for thoughts.



At Time's End,

Swanne

I am not sure that a single galaxy constitutes a reversal on a theory till many others could be located. We already know from observations that the gas and the dark matter of a galaxy are quite loosely bound, that is that because the Dark Matter only acts gravitationally it is possible that two galaxies that pass through each other can almost separate the luminous and dark matter components.

Furthermore, your idea that stars spiral inwards is unfounded and doesn't match any observables. If the sun is going 10x too fast for it would shoot off into space away from the galaxy and would have already done so in the billions of years that it has been around. It would only spiral inwards if the rotational velocity was not large enough.

Also rotation curves are not the only things that appear to tell us that there is dark matter, there is alot of evidence from gravitational lensing also... 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 years... 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.

It is conceivable that galaxies can have their luminous matter and dark matter separated, it would cause instability but the end result could be an elliptical galaxy, which represents the inner bulge. 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 don't really thing this kills of dark matter, though it is absolutely fascinating none the less. I would be searching for lensing effects from a 'Dark Galaxy'

reply to post by swan001


I somewhat understood what you are saying...

Would that imply that all the models and projections galaxies and the processes within are wrong and pure fantasy?

I guess that's brave.

You could be burned at the stake for this

Dark matter does exist in the minds of those who make money studying it If you take away the money, they will quit talking about it. Does this mean that dark matter is made of money?

That is all right, those who want to believe in Dark Matter can if they want to, I believe in god even though there is no real evidence he exists. What they are calling Dark Matter is just an unexplainable Phenomenon. Like background noise.

so, who is making money?

Originally posted by rickymouse
That is all right, those who want to believe in Dark Matter can if they want to, I believe in god even though there is no real evidence he exists. What they are calling Dark Matter is just an unexplainable Phenomenon. Like background noise.

"Science" means "knowledge" (sciencia). If you "believe" in Dark Matter, it's not "knowledge", thus it is not "science". Only assumption.

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.

Awesome post!

I very much agree with you. An accelerating, downwards trajectory would explain a lot in terms of orbital inconsistencies and it seems like a rather obvious answer to me (always has actually), due to the fact that there is a known black hole at the center of our galaxy. Especially considering the spiral shape, it seems obvious that all matter in the galaxy would be spiraling--like water in a drain--downwards and into the center of the black hole.

That's the REAL end of the world. Good thing it won't happen for billions of years!

a simple trick of optics is enough to easily explain dark matter,

if you imagine a galaxy is not only a gravitational lens,
but also an optical lens, then you can account for the extra speed of solar rotation around the galaxy centre,
by a mix of optical lensing combined with gravitational lensing.

what this means is that an optical/gravitational effect can explain that what we see is not in a true scale,

example,
look backwards through binoculars and throw a tennis ball,
it looks further away and looks like it is moving much faster that in reality.

if our galaxy is a lens optical/gravitational and the galaxy we are observing is a optical/gravitational lens,
then we have the definition of a space based telescope, made from two lenses (galaxies) "interacting" with each other
and producing distorted size/velocity measurements



solved the dark matter problem using optical and gravitational lensing principals

xploder

Please read into some astrophysics please, the spiral patter observed in a galaxy is caused by a moving density wave, it causes or prompts star formation, these stars if the gas is dense enough will be large blue stars. This is what the spiral pattern is in a galaxy. You would seemingly also suggest that there is no matter outside these arms, since the way you describe it, these arm structures are where the stars are moving inwards... what are the other stars doing then? are they rotating just fine? if they are moving inwards then why do they not form a bright band/arm either?

See how this logic is broken? and furthermore....

I really dont see how this 'makes sense' If we observe stars going faster than they should, them spiralling inwards as you want to say is happening really is the opposite of what would happen. I am not sure how this completely escapes you all.

Please excuse any errant thoughts in this post as I'm no physicist or expert on the matter whatsoever but I just had a couple of thoughts. Ok gravity is what holds moons around their planets and planets around their suns and presumably the stars around their galactic centers. Science assumes all galaxies have a super massive black hole at their centers. Therefore our star, the Sun, is currently being sucked into a giant water drain, Sagittarius A* for the astrophysicists out there, and therefore it seems like every star and galaxy is moving away from us.

Some have suggested that everything we see is from the inside of a black hole looking out which would explain everything seeming to be moving away. That may very well be true, but I have a hard time believing anyone who can't explain what gravity actually is. I mean we know, or think we know, how it works over short distances but over a galactic or universal scale? As far as I understand it gravity is a very weak force compared to electromagnetism, the weak, and strong force. It fits our theories for our local system but how much does it actually play into our galaxy or the universe at large?

Again I haven't the slightest clue on all the math 'n such that goes into the calculations required to understand the universe but looking at it from my perspective it seems like a lot of work to explain objects spiraling down a drain. I know there are way more knowledgeable people on ATS than me and yet it seems so simple at the same time. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious to others?

I will answer some of these points as much of them are misconceptions

Originally posted by thov420
Please excuse any errant thoughts in this post as I'm no physicist or expert on the matter whatsoever but I just had a couple of thoughts. Ok gravity is what holds moons around their planets and planets around their suns and presumably the stars around their galactic centers. Science assumes all galaxies have a super massive black hole at their centers.

There is no assumption, observations of the galactic centre shows the motion of several stars around the galactic centre,
link as said on that page one of those stars moves within about 80AU of the centre. For a star to do that there needs to be a very large (massive) object there that is smaller than 80AU in radius. The candidates for this other than black holes... are very few.

Our observations of active galaxies also suggest massive power sources located from the centre, once again, the power source is best explained with a black hole accreting mass...

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'

Therefore our star, the Sun, is currently being sucked into a giant water drain, Sagittarius A* for the astrophysicists out there, and therefore it seems like every star and galaxy is moving away from us.

This is not the case, the Earth is not being sucked into the sun. The moon is not being sucked into the Earth. Those stars that you see in that link are orbiting, they are not falling into anything. Yes they are falling so to speak, but their fall is stopped by their tangential motion.... So to say everything has to be sucked into a black hole is once again, something that is in peoples mind because of TV and Sci Fi rather than reality. You can orbit a blackhole perfectly stable if you like... though i would not recommend it for other reasons.

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.

It is only distant galaxies that are all moving away from us.

Again I haven't the slightest clue on all the math 'n such that goes into the calculations required to understand the universe but looking at it from my perspective it seems like a lot of work to explain objects spiraling down a drain. I know there are way more knowledgeable people on ATS than me and yet it seems so simple at the same time. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious to others?

yes see above... on the universe inside a black hole... that is an interesting theory, though have no idea how this could be tested... still that one is on the list

reply to post by swan001


Hmm so basically you are saying that all our current understanding of physics must be wrong because you don't like the concept of dark matter. Sorry, there is dark matter (as in a gravitational effect of which we have no clue what is causing it).

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:
astrobites.org...

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 years...

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) angle.

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.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by swan001

 

Hmm so basically you are saying that all our current understanding of physics must be wrong because you don't like the concept of dark matter.

Where did I say that?

Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? No, If DM doesn't exist, it doesn't mean Newton's laws don't apply anymore to large bodes, neither does it mean that Borh's model for the atom is wrong. It just means DM is not there.

Sorry, there is dark matter

That is only partially true at best. These galaxies in my OP has no DM. It's possible most elliptical don't neither.The question should be, why.

Originally posted by swan001
Where did I say that?

Because that is the implication when you say "As an opponent to Dark Matter theory".

Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? No, If DM doesn't exist, it doesn't mean Newton's laws don't apply anymore to large bodes, neither does it mean that Borh's model for the atom is wrong. It just means DM is not there.

But you still need to explain all those anomalies we observe. You can not simply pretent these observations are gone. 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.

That is only partially true at best. These galaxies in my OP has no DM. It's possible most elliptical don't neither.The question should be, why.

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.

reply to post by swan001


OK so some points but once again your assumptions are incorrect. 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.

Also, why is it people seem to think that singularities are pulling everything into them... they do pull things towards them, but it is the same gravitational mechanics as a star with planets or a planet with moons.... also there is this thing... what do they call it? 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. It might not be glamorous so that is why media and the general public don't hear much about it. It sounds similar to your idea of a galaxy swinging... which I and many others pointed out was a totally moot point and astronomers are not morons who don't think about these kinds of corrections. They do after all perform galactic simulations and attempt to simulate the future of galaxy clusters... so all motions and rotations are thought about... the reason why you may think that scientists are ignorant of these things is simply a reflection of 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.


Your point about the lensing effect of a singularity is also a moot one... look at this page

link

The orange spiky plots show the calculated/unfolded lens shape of a cluster of galaxies... notice the tall spikes? 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, after which they fall off at a rate less that expected.


You talk about distances but again you dont really understand the reality it seems... 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. While you are correct that these fields should never go to zero, your conceptualization of it is not strong in my opinion. Gravitational lensing is a small effect, but it is also an effect like any lens, you it is subjective on location size and distance...

Dark matter was theorized due to speed of stars in the outer part of distant galaxies was to fast to be explained with just gravity. The are several problems with this.

First: The gravity that was just the gravity from that one galaxies without considering all the mass in the universe.

Second: There is no consideration for the electric forces. Electric force is about 10^12 times stronger than gravity. This is much more the cause of motion in the universe than gravity. This being known, both of these two forces must be taken into account when working with motion.

Third: The speed of the stars were calculated using red shift/ Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is wrong. It is used to calculate distant, speed, and acceleration all using a single reading. This makes no sense mathematically. basic calculus tells us that the first degree reading will at most result in a first degree calculation, not a first, second, and a third degree. On top of this the work of Halton Arp has conclusively shown that connected objects have vastly different red shift. This should have thrown out the whole Hubble constant, But cosmologist continue to use it as if it is a universal law.

The idea of dark matter has to do with rate of rotation observed in the outer stars of a galaxy compared to the inner and what should be expected. So either the observations are wrong for any number of reasons (including misunderstanding about space and light and our equipment and galaxies) or the observations are accurate and there is/are reason/s why the galaxies work the way they are perceived to.

So this situation is a little like if the planets orbiting the sun further away from the sun (Neptune, Uranus, Saturn) traveled around the sun with the same velocity as Mercury and Venus.

If this were the case, at first thought it would imply that the system was rotating as a unit, like a wheel. Gravitationaly it would imply that the bulk of gravity source is not at the center of the system like in our solar system, but the stars throughout the galaxy would be like the gravitational spokes of this wheel, keeping each more distant from center star checked and balanced.

reply to post by remembering

First: The gravity that was just the gravity from that one galaxies without considering all the mass in the universe.

Second: There is no consideration for the electric forces. Electric force is about 10^12 times stronger than gravity. This is much more the cause of motion in the universe than gravity. This being known, both of these two forces must be taken into account when working with motion.

These points would sound like they sold the problem but it is very naive, because although they do have wildly different strengths, gravitational force is only additive, while electric forces both attract and repel. Electric forces are also produced by electron imbalances... on a large scale, in order to have an external charge, the object has to have a huge electron / proton imbalance...


Your third point about the Hubble constant shows how little you have studied astronomy or what these constants are or mean and how distance is calculated. It has been calibrated down the years using standard candles that are stars that are variable but have very very well known luminosity... You look at a star, and observe its brightness. Because apparent magnitude decreases with distances as is expected you can calibrate what distance that object is to a good accuracy. You look at the redshift and plot the two... This is more complicated and more involving than i have just said, but your assumptions are all incorrect and the measurement has more foundation than you have been bothered to read about or understand