Inappropriate Application of Kepler’s Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem – Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, I

Abaham,

Thank you for explaining more fully, and especially for the attached files (I almost missed them) illustrating transverse and longitudinal EM waves and the chart illustrating their suggested conceptual application to galactic rotation. IMO, this chart continues to perpetuate the misconception that galactic gravitation can be evaluated using simple Keplerian methods of approximation suitable for two-body gravitational systems.

In the terms put forward in the galactic rotation chart you supplied, I argue that gravitation is also 'interactive'. While Keplerian methods ignore the perturbances produces by orbitals other than the one being evaluated, gravitational interactions occur continuously among the massive stars and other objects within a galactic disk. That Kepler's methods chose to ignore them in the interest of simplicity (and specifically their inherent insignificance within the Sun dominated Solar system) - does not physically eliminate their effects. There are an estimated several hundred billion stars and other masses within the Galaxy that, inarguably, continuously gravitationally interact with the Solar system...

I think that the discrepancy between observed 'flat' galactic rotation and the expected Keplerian diminishment of rotational velocity at increasing radii can most simply be understood by complex gravitational interactions. Each planet orbiting the Sun can effectively be described as a two-body problem - in fact Kepler's equations do so by ignoring all gravitational effects imparted by any other planets, considering only two objects.

That works fine in the sparse Solar system, where the Sun contains 99.86% of total system mass. Here any perturbances produced by other relatively distant, low mass objects are not often significant. It is primarily the mass of the Sun, through its resulting gravitational effects, that determines the motions of each planet.

In contrast, from the perspective of each star in the disk of a spiral galaxy, for example, its motions are primarily determined by the vast 'sea' of gravitational effects produced by perhaps millions if not billions of nearby masses. There is no dominating single mass solely determining the motions of all 'orbital' bodies (supermassive black holes comprise a very small fraction of total system mass). Even the collective gravitation of a central bulge does not solely determine the motions of each disk object (some spiral galaxies do not even have a central bulge).

The complex dynamics of galactic motions simply cannot be solved with a two-body equation! There was no basis for presuming that Keplerian relations should apply to the vast distribution of masses, and vast distribution of resulting gravitational effects, within spiral galaxies.

I'm quite certain that if the Solar system's mass configuration and spatial distribution could simply be scaled up by a factor of ~200 billion that its rotational characteristics would generally comply with Keplerian expectations. However, discrete stars of nearly 200 billion solar masses cannot exist.

So, please consider that galaxies are not similar to planetary systems and cannot be expected to behave similarly. It seems to me that there is no justification for inventing some unidentified, undetectable form of mass to reconcile the discrepancy in their rotational characteristics - that should have been expected based on a casual evaluation of their disparate mass distributions!

In my essay, I've included a "Supplemental Information" section that, under the heading of "Describing Spiral Galaxy rotation without dark matter or modified gravity" lists several reports detailing more appropriate methods of evaluating the dynamics of galaxy rotation, generally representing spiral galaxy disks as - thin disks!

I do not see any need to look for any metaphysical explanations for the relatively flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies - as I understand, the physics are quite straightforward.

I can't really evaluate the possibility that longitudinal EM waves account for the observed discrepancy between the relations of rotational velocities and radial distances for planetary systems and spiral galaxies: I think that can be most simply explained by the greater proportions of mass at increasing radii in spiral galaxies. At any rate, if simplistic computational representations of planetary systems are applied to galaxies I suspect the results will be incorrect no matter what forces might be at work.

However, I am not a physicist - I can only to some extent assess information processes... Personally, I do not find it satisfying that the law of universal gravitation presumes some gravitational force that can be instantaneously imparted at great distances. I also do not find fulfillment in the idea that some curvature is metaphysically imparted to some abstract dimensional coordinates of the 'void' by local aggregations of potential mass-energy. I think that these approaches merely provide useful mathematical representations of unknown physical conditions that allow their evaluation. I think physics should be more physical than that...

The intent of my essay is to rectify past misinterpretations of observations that have profoundly shaped to future, and now present, of physics. I prefer to reduce requirements for imaginary elements whenever possible.

P.S. Frank, sorry if I misunderstood your comment.

Best wishes to you both!

Dear James,

I enjoyed your excellent well-written essay, but unfortunately I don't agree with your reasoning or conclusions. I have an alternative solution with supporting real data for evidence. The galaxy rotation curves can be understood in relation to the many problems with Milankovitch ice age theory. You don't have to be a physicist to understand it, just very open minded.

Best wishes,

Alan

Essay entry: Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality

James

It's clear dark matter is very poorly understood. As an astronomer I've been studying and analysing the evidence for many years, some of which seems even more complex and bizarre than you point out. There are dozens of papers a month published in the MNRAS with excellent new data from the many billions dollars of hardware now exploring haloes. Over half of this is inconsistent with the ruling paradigm, but the round pegs are often still jammed into odd shaped holes none the less.

The fact is that there is now far better evidence than just gravitational that 'something is out there.' Also CDM semi analytical modelling has helped to a great degree with gravitational matter density distribution, but even they can't model the complexity. (I assume you've studied the millennium simulation, if not do so. An image is in one of the essays here). Galaxy rotation curves are also far more complex than normally assumed, with virial radii related to density where the 'lock step' bodily rotation steps down. There is also much 'kinetic decoupling' now found, where the outer reaches rotate on a perpendicular axis!

An unfamiliar solution is available with which all the overwhelming 'mass' of observations fit. Of course though it also resolves a good number of related anomalies it doesn't fit the current paradigm or concordance cosmological model so won't be accepted for publication.

Consider the definition 'dark'. It was only termed that due to low luminosity and diffractive effects. diffuse plasma is now found in abundance. (mainly considered as free electrons). Plasma refractive index n=1 is the same as the vacuum. If DOES however have kinetic effects from coupling and motion (atomic scattering) and can become CO and bound molecular gas, and then be 'seen' (many good HST photo's now on the web). Plasma does of course have gravitational mass, it's thinly spread but there's a lot of space out there. Did you know Earth's own (invisible at most frequencies) bow shock contains billions of particles/c^3m? and the Voyagers have found the Heliospheric shock similar.

If you'd like an interesting new analysis check out this; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 and please do also read my essay, which suggests the full consistent physical basis.

It's a crime that far more good up to date research isn't available to the public. Only a trickle get's through, so they have to live off old scraps and a pile of nonsense (not to say most current analysis is not also nonsense). Improvement is on the way in the UK at least.

Best of luck in the competition.

Peter

Dear James Dwyer,

When eigen-rotational angle of a string is in progressive and regressive variability in cycles, its peripheral end maps a spherical spiral from inside a sphere and represents a spiral galaxy. Ellipse of orbit of each planet around the sun indicates that each elliptical orbit is part of another orbit in the celestial sphere.

Thus the observable universe differ from actual universe in that the non-observational dark matter described in Lambda-CDM model of cosmology is described differently in a segmental universe as, incoherent cluster-matters for the observer cluster-matter in a locality.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

James,

Abraham did correctly clarify my earlier statements.

"Personally, I do not find it satisfying that the law of universal gravitation presumes some gravitational force that can be instantaneously imparted at great distances."

You are correct, nothing is stated in the "law of universal gravitation" that the gravity influence is instantaneously imparted. You will not find any traditional text that teaches Newtonian mechanics mentioning, "Oh, by the way, there has to be an instantaneous influence at a distance for solar system objects to not have spiral forms."

Unfortunately, some assume the gravitation influence is instantaneous regardless of distance. That type of assumption is based upon "incomplete information". I cite a reference in my paper, The Helical Structure of the Electromagnetic Gravity Field that gives estimates of the influence velocity. It is not infinite, but much faster than the speed of electromagnetic propagation.

Experimental physicists should be able to approximate the influence velocity, if they look. Measurement instruments will have to be improved to obtain a value that has good precision.

Supporters of Einstein's gravity theory state that the gravity influence propagates at the speed of light. They are half correct. The electromagnetic (EM) field that establishes the gravity influence does propagate at the speed of light, but the influence, once established, is not limited by the original propagation velocity. The EM gravity field of objects with mass has been propagating for a long, long time.

The one attachment Abraham provided, Fig. 71.07 "Galaxy Rotations", has the two force equations F, one based upon gravity and the other on charge. For a century now, it is essentially heresy to even suggest that gravity might have an electromagnetic cause. Two simultaneously published papers can shed some light on the issue. The first by Ross McPherson titled, Electrifying Gravity and the second by James Gilson Newton's Gravitation Constant G as a Quantum Coupling Constant

Einstein's generation never considered the existence of longitudinal EM fields. Unless researchers specifically look for them, using the proper antenna configurations, they will not be able to identify them.

"I prefer to reduce requirements for imaginary elements whenever possible." You are diplomatic when you use the term "imaginary elements," I use the term "physics fiction."

I incorrectly stated, "Oh, by the way, there has to be an instantaneous influence at a distance for solar system objects to not have spiral forms." That should be "spiral orbits".

Jim,

Great work as usual.

One question: If you are not correct, then it's possible that dark matter might exist. Since many galaxies have flat rotation curves, and given the fact that these galaxies don't all have the same mass nor do they rotate at the same velocities, what are the mathematical odds that each of these galaxies would conveniently contain just the right amount of dark matter for them to individually produce this specific rotation behavior?

Hello James,

The reasoning in your essay is quite interesting.

I haven't read the papers you mentioned in the appendix of your essay, but the central section of your essay, "Establishing Requirements for Galactic Dark Matter", contains no references to earlier publications with the same argument. So my question is: is this reasoning entirely yours?

If so, you might want to pursue the issue further and discuss it with some professional astronomers; I wouldn't approach those who have made a name with dark matter research, but perhaps the ones mentioned in the appendix of your essay find it interesting. You might be able to get a full journal article out of it with a valuable point.

Best regards, Marcoen

Mr Dwyer, interesting work, well researched. I agree that dark matter is the symptom that we do not understand gravity. I believe this stems from our lack of understanding of space. And to think that not that long ago some were proposing that we had neared the end of physics! It appears we have hardly begun.

I especially value your selection of references and will follow up later on.

Chris/James

The 'lock step' rotation isn't strictly flat, it's gently graded and has 'steps' at certain 'virial' radii, with dense shocks at the change in velocity (equivalent to the Unruh effect and the incresaed 'intensity' giving photoionization). So if the rotating body represents a coherent inertial frame in accordance with both Galilean relativity and SR, as we know it does with the ECI frame within the Barycentric frame, all falls into place.

It's a chicken and egg job, increased velocity at the boundary propagates an increased ion density (that's why a meteor becomes a comet above a certain relative speed through the vacuum - also the pe cloud propagates round the proton bunch in the LHC pipe). Look also at the high star production at the halo virial radii, at the ends of the bars in a barred spiral, and lower peak along the 'front' of the bar. None of which have yet been explained any other way as it's assumed space is empty so can have no assignable 'state of motion'.

James - I also re-post my reply under anon in my blog, below.

James,

You're right. If we considered 'visible' as only the optical em range the right hand image is also not strictly 'visible', same as as the left one. However, in astronomy we're almost never dealing with the optical range (which is a tiny part of observation), so 'visible' is shorthand for visible 'at' 'in' or 'by'...' i.e. it's synonymous with 'detectable'. It is a very anthropocentric view to think the 'visibly' range is more important than any other. Astronomy is by it's very nature NOT anthropocentric! The ring shown was 'detectable' by the standard lensing based mass estimation techniques that have been used for decades. The technique is not that complex, based largely on radius of curvature. Remember, our eyes use lensing, so even our visible image of the universe depends on it! Present astronomy is equivalent to 'bionic eyes', including taking lensed images and inferring both original image and lens characteristics.

The matter is indeed then rendered 'visible', and that sense it is better than just 'optical range' detection, but, I agree it is also open to as much or even more misinterpretation as other observation (certainly including optical!

I also agree that estimation of galaxy and cluster mass from lensing is faulty. It has always been to high, and I consider 'caustics' and 'gravity wells' are used too liberally as 'patches' to cover the cracks. The 'Curved space-time' basis is in any case still unexplained (however many claim it is!).

But consider this carefully; It is not just lensing that tells up of the IGM, and whether from 'space-time curved by gravity' or from simple diffraction by the (mainly) free electrons found, (with protons, positrons, CO and basic bound molecular gas) the lensing exists. (Look carefully at the optical image and you can see the many curved 'smears' around the centre which they used).

Now we know plasma DOES refract light, and very effectively, but has a refractive index very close to 1. That's why it normally isn't detectable optically. That does not mean it is not visible by other means (including first hand by Voyager 2, and other closer probes including Cluster).

Now I say the plasma etc. we find out there moves and diffracts just like plasma anywhere else, so acts like a giant lens, and propose that the fact that lensing can be quantitatively explained in this way, along with unexplained effects such as kSZ, Faraday Rotation, ellipticity, aberration, Chirality etc, is no accident. Nothing we have found contradicts this hypothesis, only current interpretation does so.

You have a different view, which I agree should be studied considered equally with all others, as the de Souza proposal. So I should then ask questions, such as do you agree there is diffuse plasma CO and molecular gas out there, and why that might not be expected to behave with the plasma we find locally. The question is one I have asked proponents of the mainstream interpretation, with, as yet, no credible answer.

I hope that fully answers your points.

Best wishes

Peter