A New Model Without Dark Matter for the Rotation of Spiral Galaxies: The Connections Among Shape, Kinematics and Evolution by Mario Everaldo de Souza

Hello Peter,

Sorry, you are completely wrong. The bulge is spherical and as it is a two-dimensional analysis, of course, it refers to the velocity field in the plane of the disk (extension of it inside the bulge). Otherwise it would be three-diemsnsional. This is clear in Fig. 2 and in the other figures of individual galaxies.

On the caption of Fig. 6 you find "The plots present galaxy by galaxy the radial profile of stellar velocity dispersion (in km/s), ...

On Section 6.1, p.8, on the 13th line you find "...; the third and fourth rows contain respectively the Hbeta and [OIII] flux..."

Mario

Hi Jim,

Yes, you are right. Take a look at my response to Peter.

Mario

Hi Mario,

Thanks so very much - your congruent interpretation is most reassuring to me, as a lay analyst!

Jim

Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

Thank you for your comments. On the Higgs boson I recommend you my blog www.primons.com. Please, take a close look at it and send me your comments.

Regards,

Mario

Hi Jim,

Peter is completely wrong. Radial outflows in spiral galaxies is a common phenomenon. On the essay references on finds the paper by Shetty et al. Kinematics of spiral-arm streaming in M51, Ap J, vol 665, 1138 (2007) and the paper by Lindblad et al. The velocity field of the barred spiral galaxy NGC 1300 revisited, A&A, vol 317, 36 (1997). And there are many other ones. If you write on google RADIAL OUTFLOWS IN SIRAL GALAXIES you'll see that there is a long list of papers on this subject.

Regards,

Mario

Hi Mario,

I agree - thanks! Wandering around a bit, I ran into some images of merging spirals (heic0910i/, for example). That reminded me: if properly configured spherically symmetrical dark matter halos were necessary to prevent the expulsion of high velocity peripheral disk objects, for example, how can galaxies merge (I think necessarily disrupting the distribution of halo mass) without many visible objects being ejected? I think the answer is probably that simulated processes must be very precisely controlled...

Jim

Hi Jim,

A lot of simulation is completely biased. A lot of it is not really science.

regards,

Mario

Pentcho

The rules of logic are breached by your assumption. You have falsified nothing because;

Treating frequency f as what it actually IS, the derivative of wavelength and speed, you may also, via c = fL, explain observed co-variance and Doppler shift by directly obtaining c' = f'L', by simply reducing L the obtain the increased f. In fact we KNOW lambda is reduced in higher frequency waves experimentally.

We also know refractive index n is a constant. Whatever the 'state of motion' of any medium. So let's stop cherry picking and ignoring inconvenient facts.

You are trapped in being unable to abandon the assumption that keeps you from enlightenment. This means all you are able to do is 'chant'. I believe you are also capable of physics, but must be able to escape the shackles you wear to enable it.

I repeat, your chanting is counter productive, allowing all dissenters to be called crackpots and special relativity to remain untouched. Please stop and apply some more refined intellect. The evidence of verification is embedded throughout my essay. You have not challenged anything therein.

I invite you as a first step to try to falsify any one of my propositions.

Peter

Pentcho

The rules of logic are breached by your assumption. You have falsified nothing because;

Treating frequency f as what it actually IS, the derivative of wavelength and speed, you may also, via c = fL, explain observed co-variance and Doppler shift by directly obtaining c' = f'L', by simply reducing L the obtain the increased f. In fact we KNOW lambda is reduced in higher frequency waves experimentally.

We also know refractive index n is a constant. Whatever the 'state of motion' of any medium. So let's stop cherry picking and ignoring inconvenient facts.

You are trapped in being unable to abandon the assumption that keeps you from enlightenment. This means all you are able to do is 'chant'. I believe you are also capable of physics, but must be able to escape the shackles you wear to enable it.

I repeat, your chanting is counter productive, allowing all dissenters to be called crackpots and special relativity to remain untouched. Please stop and apply some more refined intellect. The evidence of verification is embedded throughout my essay. You have not challenged anything therein.

I invite you as a first step to try to falsify any one of my propositions.

Peter

Hello Peter,

I think you sent a message to the worng person.

Regards,

Mario

Mario and Jim

Sorry, now having to re-paste most posts, and it seems I forgot to 'cut', so my long and detailed response to your above comments is lost!

I see Richard has now commented anyway, and he seems familiar with galaxy kinetics and Sauron data. My point was that we must consider actual data in astronomy, which does not agree with radial outflow in the disc plane. 'Opinions' can be found supporting ANY proposition in astronomy. I welcome all views, but we must remember they are not 'evidence'! Ganda does not find or suggest radial outflows, you simply misinterpret his words. All the Atlas 3D analysis confirms the same, as does all past spectroscopy. I don't suggest this disqualifies your thesis, but most astronomers or astrophysicists would just roll their eyes and reject the whole package while that seems integral to it.

I agree no new exotic particles are needed, but if we examine all the real data now available, high electron densities to cannot be ruled out as a source of gravitational potential. I also suggest the Yukawa potential as a closer fit than Newton, with the sharper 'cut off' to the curve found at shocks and haloes. In a way this is another MOND, but also using plasma at the densities actually physically found in equivalent circumstances to remove all the mystery by making the numbers work. But that does still not prove anything I agree.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard,

I'm sure Mario can best respond, but I must ask a very specific question regarding the Ganda et al. paper being discussed. Figures 5a-5r on pages 9-26 seem to represent both the stellar and gaseous radial velocity dispersions along identical axial coordinates. There does not appear to be any representation of any velocities perpendicular to the galactic plane.

Can you please explain how I might have misinterpreted the data representation?

Thanks in advance,

Jim

Peter,

I must repeat the very specific question that I asked Richard regarding the Ganda et al. paper being discussed. Figures 5a-5r on pages 9-26 seem to represent both the stellar and gaseous radial velocity dispersions along identical axial coordinates. There does not appear to be any representation of velocities perpendicular to the galactic plane.

Can you please explain how I might have misinterpreted the data presentation?

Yes, words can be difficult and confusing, but the Ganda et al paper in question is an interm analysis - no final conclusions have yet been reached. The second paragraph in the section 7, "CONCLUSIONS" begins, stating: "In this paper we discussed the first results from this study, presenting the two-dimensional kinematics for stars and ionised gas. The majority of our galaxies is shown to be kinematically cold and to possess a considerable amount of ionised gas, covering in most cases a large part of the SAURON FoV [the galactic bulge] and frequently following bar or spiral arm patterns in the spatial distribution."

Its goes on to say: "We also qualitatively compared the characteristics of our maps with the galaxy's properties known from literature HST isophotal analysis: the main conclusion common to spectroscopy and photometry is that the kinematic detection of a cold inner region turns out to be often related to the lack of a classical stellar bulge and the presence of small-scale structures (nuclear star clusters, inner rings, inner bars)."

The section concludes: "In follow-up papers we will model the observed kinematic fields in detail, present the line-strength maps for these same galaxies, consider the bulge-disc decomposition, and compare our results with those for the 24 Sa bulges in the SAURON survey."

The "kinematic detection of a cold inner region" in late-type spiral galaxies consistent with bulgeless spirals may infer the depletion of what is referred to as an 'inside-out' model of spiral galaxy development.

Wouldn't most astronomers and physicists (interrupted from research presuming the existence of dark matter) also roll their eyes when it's suggested that dark matter is actually (gravitationally) dense but (non-emitting) cold plasma?

BTW, collisions of galaxy clusters that result in the separation of the combined x-ray emitting intracluster mediums from the two clusters' galaxies, such as the Bullet Cluster and the Train Wreck cluster, all seem to exhibit weak gravitational lensing effects associated with their galaxies, not their combined plasma. From this it must be concluded that the weak gravitational lensing effects attributed to dark matter is definitively not produced by the plasma comprising the ICMs.

Feel free to dismiss most of the above words, but please do explain how I might be misinterpreting the Ganda et al. data presentation.

Sincerely, Jim

Jim

'Late type' only refers to the Hubble tuning fork sequence not late in evolution. There is no link between 'time' and 'early' and 'late,' types, very misleading for non astronomers I agree. In fact in terms of stellar age the converse is true, the 'cold inner regions' are most prevalent in the younger more open spirals. In those cases the AGN is weak and relatively dormant, so minimal perpendicular outflows, (as the Milky Way). In (stellar) population age terms, (blue = young red = old), and the reddest are the most blended discs with the most predominant bulges.

The motion shown in the Ganda Fig's is the same as all (the very many) others, rotational velocity. NOT radial velocity. This is why one side is shifted to blue the other red, the blue side is approaching us, the red receding). This is as originally found in the kinetic SZ effect. Ganda was indeed followed up, with dozens more comprehensive studies and other authors (it was 2005!) but as I complained, most are not 'free for view'. I can read then as a fellow of the RAS, but most have to pay. The most definitive is probably my reference 9. One good recent one on arXiv is here, clarifying the above; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3138.pdf

Few astronomers 'presume' exotic Dark Matter', though I agree wrong assumption is rife, and yes, many do indeed 'roll their eyes' and ignore my thesis too, even though it's the only one so far that fits both the data and observational evidence perfectly! And plasma is certainly NOT 'non emitting'! The whole point is; my essay agrees that it absorbs and emits BETTER than any other known substance, but refractive index n=1 means the only observable effects are kinetic (if it is 'moving').

All collisions I know also lens from distorted electron halo components, that is the whole point of my Fig.1 which shows precisely this, but which you approached from a viewpoint formed by set of inaccurate assumptions, so the conclusion in your penultimate paragraph is not consistent with the evidence. I'm certain someone somewhere postulates they don't, but do pass me any evidence (based on data) of that.

I hope that fully clarifies all your points, but if not please do read the above link before reverting. I'm sure there are now also more on arXiv.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Thanks for responding. I don't see any reason to become entangled in any discussion of galaxy morphological development - I'll defer to you on all of that.

You stated: "The motion shown in the Ganda Fig's is the same as all (the very many) others, rotational velocity. NOT radial velocity. This is why one side is shifted to blue the other red, the blue side is approaching us, the red receding)."

The directional rotational velocity (as you describe) is only shown in the central column of three charts for each spectral line. The chart columns are identified in Fig. 5a as representing flux, [rotational] velocity and velocity dispersion.

As is clearest for the second row, first column chart of stellar flux, and the third column chart of stellar velocity dispersion, I think that radial directional properties are indicated.

These charts certainly cannot be so simplistically characterized a only representing rotational velocity. Please reexamine them - I'd appreciate a more complete explanation...

You followed your explanation of red and blue shifting in rotating systems by saying: "This is as originally found in the kinetic SZ effect." I don't understand what the directional spectral shifting of galactic objects in planar disk structures have to do with the kSZ effect found in the ionized intracluster medium of galaxy clusters.

You stated: "All collisions I know also lens from distorted electron halo components..." Do you not know of the two instances I specifically mentioned? As I described, in these cases the hot, x-ray emitting ionized gas has clearly become separated from both the collided clusters' galaxies and the coincident "dark matter" inferred from the seemingly excessive weak gravitational lensing effects identified. The Bullet Cluster is often cited as definitive proof of dark matter (even though it is conveniently located with the clusters' galaxies) since the lensing effects are clearly distinct from the isolated x-ray emitting ICM.

I think that essentially all published astronomers that encounter discrepancies between gravitational effects they've identified and their estimation of the gravitational effects produced by their estimates of mass represented by apparent ordinary matter presume that the cause is the presence of dark matter.

Likewise, it appears that no respectable physicist working in the field of cosmology would not presume the existence of enormous amounts of dark matter.

As you know, in my essay (1419) I argue that the analytical methods used to establish the existence of galactic dark matter were invalid and their conclusion was misconceived.

Sorry - I read the free link you provided but found it to be of no value. I strongly recommend a freely available paper published in the ApJ KINEMATICS OF SPIRAL-ARM STREAMING IN M51.

My sincere apologies to Mario for hijacking your blog...

Jim

Jim

'Late type' only refers to the Hubble tuning fork sequence not late in evolution. There is no link between 'time' and 'early' and 'late,' types, very misleading for non astronomers I agree. In fact in terms of stellar age the converse is true, the 'cold inner regions' are most prevalent in the younger more open spirals. In those cases the AGN is weak and relatively dormant, so minimal perpendicular outflows, (as the Milky Way). In (stellar) population age terms, (blue = young red = old), and the reddest are the most blended discs with the most predominant bulges.

The motion shown in the Ganda Fig's is the same as all (the very many) others, rotational velocity. NOT radial velocity. This is why one side is shifted to blue the other red, the blue side is approaching us, the red receding). This is as originally found in the kinetic SZ effect. Ganda was indeed followed up, with dozens more comprehensive studies and other authors (it was 2005!) but as I complained, most are not 'free for view'. I can read then as a fellow of the RAS, but most have to pay. The most definitive is probably my reference 9. One good recent one on arXiv is here, clarifying the above; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3138.pdf

Few astronomers 'presume' exotic Dark Matter', though I agree wrong assumption is rife, and yes, many do indeed 'roll their eyes' and ignore my thesis too, even though it's the only one so far that fits both the data and observational evidence perfectly! And plasma is certainly NOT 'non emitting'! The whole point is; my essay agrees that it absorbs and emits BETTER than any other known substance, but refractive index n=1 means the only observable effects are kinetic (if it is 'moving').

All collisions I know also lens from distorted electron halo components, that is the whole point of my Fig.1 which shows precisely this, but which you approached from a viewpoint formed by set of inaccurate assumptions, so the conclusion in your penultimate paragraph is not consistent with the evidence. I'm certain someone somewhere postulates they don't, but do pass me any evidence (based on data) of that.

I hope that fully clarifies all your points, but if not please do read the above link before reverting. I'm sure there are now also more on arXiv.

Best wishes

Peter 23.9

Jim

Do you realize the term 'velocity dispersion' has nothing to do with 'direction'? It is a notional value of relative speed range 'spreads'. I repeat, and I'm sorry, but it seems both you and Mario have misinterpreted the terminology'; there is no implication of any but trivial radial motion in Ganda Fig 5a, and more disc plane inflow (jet 'feedback') than outflow in Sauron findings. A good intro overview to help is in this presentation. http://www-obs.univ-lyon1.fr/labo/perso/jeremy.blaizot/Presentations/emsellem.pdf my essay (and last years) fills in some missing gaps, but it's a good start. A more complete list is here; http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/sauron/publications.html

The kSZ is not just 'found in the...etc.' as you seem to assume, It is a common 'effect' consistent with all findings of galaxy kinetics.

Yes, very familiar with collisions and bullet cluster, and the lensing CANNOT be explained without the distorted clouds, as the text in the link confirms. Your comments don't make sense, I assume as based on misunderstandings. The affected ion densities of ALL collisions (there are really not that many) studied affect lensing patterns. Yes it is assumed as 'dark matter', but no, though it DOES have to be something with gravitational potential matching halo interaction evolution it may just as well be plasma because plasma n=1. There are still many different opinions on what that unidentified ('dark') matter is, including many agreeing baryonic including MACHO's. Yes, most do assume the matter is there, but for much more sound reasons than you seem to realise. Your suggestion would need to show how it can fit the data to offer your proposal any support. It certainly looks unable to do so at present, so you have to show how with some pretty detailed data analysis not to be laughed off.

I can see the free link was 'no value' to your thesis, but it is of truth value! I looked at your link to the M51 Density Wave paper, which again finds no net radial outflow, confirming (1141) the "CONTOURS of the projected velocity field are purely radial." Also, as I said; "that out-of-plane motions are significant."and suggesting (1157) "the input spiral pattern vanishes in less than one orbital timescale (~200 Myr)" Supporting the evolution sequence of spiral to lenticular (SO) which I identify.

Sorry Mario, but it is also in response to your false accusations that I was 'wrong'. I'll re-post this on Jim's string in case there are more questions. Time to face facts about the cited 'evidence', but I repeat, I agree there are very many fundamentally wrong assumptions in astronomy, and 'patch' atop 'patch,' most from trying to be consistent with SR. All attempts to challenge assumptions should be encouraged, but also well evidenced.

Best wishes

Peter

Ooops

Cut'n paste issue, only the 2nd half of the above (velocity dispersion) is new!

Peter

Peter,

I can only take offense to statements such as "Your comments don't make sense, I assume as based on misunderstandings." I will respond more rationally.

In relation to my comments (about the Bullet Cluster), they are entirely consistent with the referenced text, including the concluding statements:

"But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists."

In fact, those statements conflict with your assertion that the gravitational lensing effects identified can easily be produced by the separated gas.

IMO, the established interpretation falsifies your thesis that the effects attributed to dark matter are actually the product of dense plasmas. This interpretation is confirmed in a recent research reported in the ApJ states in its abstract:

"Weak-lensing results for A1758N agree with previous weak-lensing results for clusters 1E0657-558 (Bullet cluster) and MACS J0025.4-1222, whose X-ray gas components were found to be largely separated from their clusters' gravitational potentials."

Ref.: B. Ragozzine et al. "WEAK-LENSING RESULTS FOR THE MERGING CLUSTER A1758." ApJ 744 94 (Jan 10 2012). doi:10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/94. arXiv:1111.4983v2.

The consensus explanation for the separation of colliding galaxy clusters' gaseous intracluster mediums (ICM) from their galaxies and (presumedly WIMP) dark matter (normally coincident with the ICM prior to collision) is that, when the relatively high velocity clusters meet, their effectively non-interacting sparse galaxies and (WIMP) dark matter proceed in the independent directions of their established momentum, while the disperse gaseous ICMs physically interact, producing "ram pressure" that largely absorbs their momentum.

The separation of lensing effects from the gaseous ICMs (but not their galaxies) seems to falsify your assertion that the lensing effects are produced by the gaseous ICMs. BTW, It does not preclude the possibility that the clusters' galactic masses have been systematically underestimated, and that their gravitational potential alone produces the weak lensing effects.

I'm aware that I do not have the expertise to fully evaluate Mario's thesis that the gaseous arms of spiral galaxies are produced from outflows of gas from the galactic center. That's why I've asked you to explain the data to me. However, you seem intent on merely dismissing any interpretation of observational data indicating that there are any outflows except the perpendicular polar jets produced by AGN. That, taken with your questionable assessment of other data convinces me that your evaluations cannot be relied upon.

I'm sorry that I had to bring up important observational evidence that conflicts with you own proposal. However, insulting me is not appropriate - even if you cannot respond appropriately.

Sincerely, Jim

Hi Peter,

I thank you a lot your comments above. I reread The paper of Ganda et al. and it refers to measurements of the dispersion velocity sigma and not to direct measurements of the velocities of radial outflows. Thus, you are very right although the data do refer to a plane. I think that I was mislead due to the use of the word radial, but the paper meant the radial profile of the velocity field.

I am reassessing the whole data on the spirals used as examples of the model. It looks like, though, that sigma and the velocities of radial outflows are close since the model works very fine as it worked with the data of other spirals not present in Ganda's paper.

Best regards,

Mario