Jim/Mario
Ganda found no radial outflows on the disc plane, and no other astronomical data that I know of suggests this. Please let me know if you find any. Outflows, also but not always referred as jets, are ALL perpendicular to the disc. It's a simple misunderstanding. If you had followed up my references you'd see this, and why. It's all about the AGN mechanism.
"Emission lines' is a term from spectroscopy, and a 'tell tale' of emitter kinematics due to Doppler shifts. It is nothing to do with any "vectors of emissions" on the disc plane from the core outwards. The analysis in the paper was of rotational velocities, adjusted according to view angle showing the edge approaching us blue shifted and the receeding edge red shifted. A careful read of the paper makes this clear.
AGN's are increasingly better detected and, like bars, are now found in almost all galaxies closely analysed. Google will help in a better understanding, (as will my paper I gave you the link to). There are scores of papers, inc. from back in 2001; http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0108509v1.pdf
Right or wrong, Halo mass (dark matter or not) is considered well established from the various sources and is a successful tool for AGN analysis. i.e. here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19917.x/pdf haloes are between 10^11 and 10^14 (equivalent) solar masses. Milky Way stellar mass is normally assumed as 5.5x10^10, and "implied halo mass is ∼2 ﾃ-- 1012ﾂ M⊙, consistent with most recent direct estimates and inferences from the MW/M31 timing argument."
Studies from SDDS DR-7 give Limits on the local dark matter density' 1.25GeV/cm^-3 with 90% confindence. (Garbari et al.). But include ALL halo matter. As some things are so long and well 'established' you have to read between the lines of some further work, such as this 'free for view';
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.2493v2.pdf
Your estimate of 'a factor of 10' is a long way out. Some estimates do claim there is that much, but not most where solidly based on all the evidence (not just gravitational).
Your assessment of orbital velocities is also a bit inaccurate. You didn't seem to understand the term 'virial radius'. If you look at a graph of the curve you'll find 'flats' but with pronounced steps, in areas of higher ion density. (I've found a cause and effect link - equivalent to Unruh effect propagation).
Intricsic rotation is space is also key, as the link I also gave. With respect you will remain perplexed if you don't read them.
I did say Feng extended the work (from galaxies to clusters). I can only give so much tome or MNRAS ref's so you'll have to Google arxiv yourself, or trust the work I cite above, not cherry pick.
Lastly Mario; Look at M87 or Centaurus A (good shot in my cited paper) and you'll find perpendicular outflows can certainly be very substantial, but I agree, the AGN is less well developed on open spirals, building through closed spirals to discs and SO's.
Your assumption about 'ions' is also wrong. The whole point of free electrons is that, as I mentioned, they are 'self focussing' (a well known quality of plasma) with a refractive index of 1 or even slightly lower!! The therefore DO absorb light and re-emit ('atomic scattering') but that does not mean 'scatter' in other directions as it does for molecular gas!
A proof is in the ionosphere, dense with ions but completely invisible, except to the kinetic effects due to orbital co-motion through baryonic space (stellar aberration).
Please do respond in detail on any points, but it's helpful if you do your own reading and research first. The errors are only due to lack of this.
Peter
