• Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)

  • 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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #12

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."

  • [deleted]

  • Post #13

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".

Frank,

Thanks very much for the links - they look interesting. I do think that the physical processes responsible for producing gravitation have not yet been identified, much less fully described.

I focus primarily on the process used to infer the presence of galactic dark matter because, as an information systems analyst, it's relatively straightforward and seems so obviously in error. I can't understand why no one seems interested, but I do know that if I can make any useful contribution to physics, that's it!

Peter,

Since you referred me to both your FQXi essay and a separate research report in your preceding comment, I'll respond here. I'll apologize in advance for being blunt, but I think there's some important issues that must be addressed.

As a lay information systems analyst I cannot reasonably assess your essay, but I am compelled to point out a critical misrepresentation of the right image in 'Figure 1'. The superimposed image caption states: "Visible 'Dark Matter'. Galaxy Cluster CL 0024+17."

The Figure 1 caption states:

"Space. Different constituents of the Inter-Galactic Medium (IGM) are visible at each waveband. X-ray (left) and visible (right) 'dark matter' around clusters, galaxies and stars. The 'clouds' represent a diffuse plasma medium of ions, CO and molecular gas..."

It's not clear what 'clouds' you're referring to, but I'm certain that the so-called "visible" dark matter is not visible in any waveband. As briefly explained in Wikipedia - CL0024+17, the image shown in your essay attributed to "visible" 'dark matter' is actually a composite telescopic image overlayed by a 'gravity map' illustrating dark matter as it seems to be inferred from identified gravitational effects. Those gravitational effects are very tenuously identified from minute optical distortions of likely many thousands of background galaxies, statistically evaluated to derive the location of the weak lensing medium. The total mass required to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects is compared to the estimated mass of the clusters' galaxies and the intracluster medium (thought to represent most of the cluster's mass) - the difference is thought to be the mass represented by the inferred dark matter. This exceedingly complex process is subject to significant error.

The illustrated CL 0024+17 dark matter is not visible, and cannot consist of any ordinary detectable matter and does not emit any EM radiation including X-rays. Since this identified peripheral dark matter ring circumscribing the galaxy cluster, conveniently aligned to the Earth's line of sight, is thought to have been dispersed by some collision, it is not collocated with the hot, X-ray emitting intracluster medium. Hubblesite (no relation) contains a newsy discussion and interviews, concluding with the statement: "Cl 0024+17 is the first cluster to show a dark matter distribution that differs from the distribution of both the galaxies and the hot gas."

The Wikipedia entry referenced above includes both the unaltered telescopic image of CL 0024+17 and the illustration overlay you described as "visible" 'dark matter', for ease of comparison.

Regarding your paper you referred me to, http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016, its "Fig. 1" image of NGC 5128 exhibits some 'pixelating' distortions. ESO Centaurus A is a much clearer image showing the illuminated area from the disk to the ends of the polar jets. These seem reminiscent of the giant polar bubbles of plasma recently detected in the Milky Way, thought to have been ionized by relativistic jets when the Milky Way last had an active galactic nucleus. Your paper states: "The dense ionised particle plasma halo is the dark matter that binds the galaxy together gravitationally." I'm not sure whether you're referring to the apparent illuminated polar bubbles or the apparent dense molecular clouds surrounding the disk periphery, but in neither case could they compensate for a the absence of a Keplerian rotation curve (one whose plotted rotational velocity diminishes at increasing radii).

Keplerian relations produce planetary rotation curves that are flat for the planets nearest the Sun; for planets at increasing radii, their rotational velocity continuously diminishes. For dark matter to produce the relative flat rotation curves observed for visible galactic disk objects, it is necessary to significantly extend the galactic periphery, increasing total mass by up to a factor of 10. This configuration requires that most of the galaxy's diameter is composed solely of undetected dark matter. There is no matter shown in the Fig. 1 image that could produce this configuration. Dark matter must be undetected. The ESO has produced an artist's impression of the Milky Way galaxy's dark matter halo to illustrate the necessary mass distribution required to produce observed rotational velocities within the context of Kepler's laws of planetary motion applied to spiral galaxies. Please see: ESO DM Halo.

Of course, if you read my essay you should have found that I argue that imposing the specific laws of planetary motion on vast spiral galaxies is invalid, and artificially produces the falsely perceived galaxy rotation problem that seems to require the compensatory mass thought to be provided by imaginary dark matter. As shown in the "Supplemental Information" section of my essay, there are a number of physicists that have produced models of spiral galaxies that accurately describe their observed rotational characteristics without requiring any dark matter or modified gravity.

Best wishes.

Frank,

I finally read through the reference link you provided in your first posting: Helical Electromagnetic Gravity. Not having an education or background I do find some things too difficult, but I do the best I can. I found your report very interesting an enlightening, although I certainly couldn't understand enough of the details to be able to assess the proposal's correctness. I've also attempted to read the other two references, with little success, I'm afraid.

The one thing I find is that it has also seemed inescapable to me that the two principle working theories of gravitation do not even attempt to specify what physical elements and processes produce the effects that they so usefully describe. In other words, applying curvature to abstract dimensional spacetime coordinates ingeniously explains only the results of some physical process - but not what the physical process was! Likewise Newton's undescribed force of attraction.

Without actually determining the physical processes and elements actually involved in the production of gravitation's effects, it's impossible to really understand the effects of gravitation in very different conditions than those we experience. For that reason alone I applaud any efforts to understand the physical nature of gravitation.

However any EM conditions and processes are proposed to produce some or all of the gravitational effect, they must explain how the effects of gravitation consistently relate to the mass of an object rather than any energy state. For example, the effects of gravitation seem to be identical relative to their mass whether it's the Sun or the Moon. Certainly the Sun is a high energy emitter of EM radiation while the moon is not.

As I have said, I think that the crucial issue identified in the referenced "Galaxy Rotations" chart is that "Newtonian gravitation" (actually Kepler's laws of planetary motion) is perceived as describing only a central attraction. As I referenced in my "Supplemental Information" section, several physicists have produced models successfully describing galaxy rotational characteristics without relying on any simplistic centralized attraction. For example, please see: Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies. The chart is also incorrect in stating that "Gravity can only produce spheres or ellipsoids" - it obviously also can produce spirals galaxies, and the gravitation of interacting galaxies is 'interactive'.

The Galaxy Rotation Problem was erroneously manufactured by applying Keplerian rotation curves to spiral galaxies (as shown in the "Galaxy Rotations" chart Abaham referenced). That error does not actually represent Newtonian gravitation, as shown in my reference above. It's interesting to me that whoever produced that chart also recognized that it was (the idea that) gravitation's effects are only centralized that produces the requirement for galactic dark matter.

While I think it is important to understand the physical nature of gravitation, whatever it might be, I think it's far more crucial at this point in time that physics recognize that galactic dark matter was erroneously inferred, and most likely does not exist in any significant quantity.

9 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #17

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?

    Chris,

    Great question. For all (especially spiral) galaxies to have just enough dark matter to produce a generally flat (or even increasing) rotation curve rather than the inappropriately expected diminishing curve, there would have to be some feedback mechanism at work in the development of galaxies such that the amount and/or the distribution of ordinary mass would just fit the amount of dark matter present - or vice versa, that a specific amount of ordinary matter developing into a spiral galaxy would somehow collect the specific amount of dark matter necessary to produce a nearly flat curve.

    Moreover, the different fundamental types or morphological classifications of galaxies, sphericals, ellipticals and spirals, early and late types, each seem to have varying amounts of dark matter that would have to be present in order for their observed rotation curves to fit with Keplerian methods of determining rotational velocity.

    For example, nearly spherical galaxies seem to require the least amount of dark matter, while more elliptical galaxies require a little more, and spirals require an even greater proportion of dark matter. The amount of dark matter thought to be required generally increases as the mass configuration of ordinary matter increasingly deviates from spherical symmetry. To this extent, the amount of dark matter required to explain a galaxy's deviation from Keplerian rotational characteristics is related to the extent of its deviation from spherical symmetry.

    This seems problematic, since the different types of galaxies are thought to represent evolutionary stages of galaxy development through mergers. For each type to have the specific amount of dark matter present to explain the deviation from Keplerian expectations, galaxies would have to gain or loose a specific amount of dark matter during the merger and eventual reconfiguration...

    Alternatively, of course, these variations in dark matter requirements actually result from Kepler's relations and resulting equations being derived solely from observations of the generally spherically symmetrical mass distributions characteristic of the Solar system - when inappropriately applied to complex aggregations of billions of massive objects.

    As I said - great question!

    7 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #19

    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

      Hello

      Thanks for your very supportive comment. I have read some related unpublished remarks by C. F. Gallo referring to the initial misconception of galactic dark matter, although I arrived at these ideas independently and have developed them much further. J. D. Carrick and F. I. Cooperstock make some brief mention of the same issues in their unpublished paper referenced in my essay. I had previously discussed those points in emails to one of them. I have had some fairly extensive discussions with a number of the authors of my references, including directing them to this and somewhat similar previous essays. However, while the discussions have been very favorable, none have addressed the specific points made here.

      I approach this problem as a highly experienced (retired) information systems analyst. Somehow I get the impression that physicists may have a wholly different perspective - and tend to dismiss my analysis (I cannot produce any mathematical proofs, etc., although they are certainly achievable to someone more capable).

      I also suspect that there is a great deal of professional reluctance to so directly criticize the established work of a so highly regarded astronomer as Vera Rubin, not to mention the many thousands of researches that have published works presuming the existence of galactic dark matter over the past several decades. I have unsuccessfully attempted to contact Vera Rubin directly several times during the past few years.

      I do appreciate your interest, but don't feel that I'm capable of producing a paper that would be accepted for publication. If you would be interested in further developing this line of reasoning - I would certainly consider a collaboration!

      Sincerely,

      Jim

      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.

        M. Vasilyeva, thanks very much for your consideration and very kind remarks.

        I wholeheartedly agree that understanding the physical nature of spacetime is crucial to more completely understanding gravitation.

        Best wishes in your future studies, Jim

        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

        Peter,

        If I understand you correctly, in plain terms the "chicken and egg job" you describe refers to your scenario in which the galactic effects commonly attributed to dark matter halos are instead the products of plasma halos, similar to the x-ray emitting intracluster medium within galaxy clusters. Your description of "increased velocity at the boundary propagates an increased ion density" implies that the high velocity motions of galactic disk periphery ionizes gas to produce the plasma halo - correct?

        In that case, wouldn't this galactic plasma halo - large, massive clouds of (ionized or not) gasses be directly detectable from their emissions and/or interaction with photons? Again, any galactic halos providing compensatory mass, fitting observed flat or increasing galaxy rotation curves to Keplerian diminishing curve models would be required to increase total galactic mass up to ten-fold and increase the planar mass distribution by around three-fold. Surely such an enormous mass of gas clouds enveloping galaxies would be directly detectable via photon emissions.

        The semantical argument that dark matter indirectly inferred by derived gravitational effects can be considered in any way 'visible' (referring of course to our extended discussion in your and other blogs) is an interesting maneuver. Honestly, I should probably simply accept your explanation, letting you off the hook for the "Visible 'dark matter'" misrepresentation. However, the reason I brought it up to begin with is the reason I cannot accept that compromise. Allowing such misrepresentations perpetuates the considerable confusion regarding dark matter.

        Sorry, but I must insist that inference is not equivalent to the direct detection of photons. The rings of "Visible 'dark matter'" 'clouds' shown in the NASA image Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter is no more real the artist's rendering of a dark matter halo surrounding the Milky Way in Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories? (an ESO release - a very interesting read).

        Perpetuation of such misrepresentations leads to inaccuracies such as the statement in your blog (1330) posting - Anonymous replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT:

        "We now estimate the rotational velocities of galaxies via the red and blue shift of the dark matter haloes."

        I'm sorry if I seem inconsiderate, but there should be nothing personal about the pursuit of reality.

        Sincerely, Jim

        6 days later

        My reply, posted on the author's essay blog:

        Caohoàng Hai thân men,

        If I understand, then, you propose that the gravitational effects causing planets to orbit the Sun are not the same universal gravitation that causes moons to orbit planets? Since the law of universal gravitation can be very usefully applied to both realms, it seems to me unlikely that the two nearly identical effects would be caused by different processes.

        As I tried to explain, I personally view gravitation as a 'push' from space contracted by a condensed mass. The appearance of attraction as described by Newton is the combined result of two opposingly directed 'pushing' fields of space.

        I do not subscribe to the existence of a physical force of attraction, only the approximation of a net effect of attraction produced by the interaction of external fields produced by massive objects. That aside, I really don't know how many accidental granddaughters I have - I do think the two I know are quite attractive, but that's a different matter...

        Jim

        Jim

        Emissions by CO receding will be redshifted, approaching blue shifted. The same is then true of free electrons, except that they only re-emit on or near the arrival 'vector' (as plasma is self focussing) so will only re-emit (so lens) the light from galaxies behind the plasma halo towards us, not widely 'scatter' light from all around.

        This is important as it means we can obtain the rotational velocity from the CO, molecular gas etc, and the (normally outer) ion density from the DELAYS. Which are found up to 3 years so far (Abell) relative to the accelerated emissions from the other side of the halo. These 'lensing delays' are thus only kinetic (related again to the kSZ effect) as plasma n=1 so there is no dispersion delay.

        This is very important, but not yet studied or accepted by the community though more observationally and logically consistent than current (recognised as inconsistent and 'poorly understood') interpretation.

        I'm afraid your own interpretation of this element is less, not more, consistent with observation than current theory, however much you 'must insist' that mine is wrong. I agree of course that current theory is also wrong.

        I don't take any scientific challenge or criticism personally, except when people abuse or ignore the data. With respect you are now edging towards that dangerous area! Proper science is surely about honest falsification, not cherry picking support. Yes?

        Peter

        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

          I repost here my response to Peter's comment, originally posted at Mario de Souza's essay blog...

          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

          Jim

          If someone resists accessing actual evidence but proposes something contrary that's fine, but that's called speculation not science and I'm sure you can judge how its veracity is viewed.

          You now 'urge me to consider' evidence assuming I have not done so for both that and far better evidence very closely for some years. You assumption is incorrect. But I also still don't agree your characterisation (last para). I'll do my best again to explain, as long as you don't call it 'lecturing'!

          When galaxies and clusters collide, let's say the 'fine structure' (whatever) surrounds them is disturbed. This is invariably found as more dense CO and molecular gas towards the barycentre and a more diffuse electron based plasma (when detectable) towards the outer halo (or IGM/ICM). (They overlap because one begets the other!) Now I'm sorry, but if you've studied as much data and research as I have over the years you will find a clear pattern, consistent with the following description (and I'm not just spouting any mainstream 'dark matter' theories).

          The molecular gas clouds are only concentrated in different parts of space to the plasma because they 'started' in different parts of space so are affected differently. Now the lensing found does not 'JUST' correlate with the visible molecular gas, at WHATEVER wavelength it scatters light (normally investigated at multiple frequencies). All the condensed matter there is assumed to have gravitational potential according to it's mass just like it does in our back yard. The change in motions of the visible matter correlates with this basis and provides an approximation of density of the NON visible 'clouds'. These are normally thus considered as 'dark matter', either as some exotic new particles or not. I propose not, because the densities are consistent with electron densities found locally (The Kingsley Figure 2 I referred you to, and the international standard ionospheric model at up to 10^14 particles/cm^-3 at shocks).

          Now there is also other evidence, quite complex, but lensing is the main and largely independent second 'check'. It quite simply does not correlate with the visible gas, at least 'alone'. But now we get into interpretation'. Mainstream uses 'curved space-time' to estimate galaxy mass, but gets anomalously high masses. More and more (inconsistent with relativity) use my method of diffraction by matter for lensing (as smaller lenses) which is more consistent with the REAL data (Sauron, Atlas 3D etc).

          The lensing then simply implies spatial distribution and density. Most of mainstream just call it 'dark matter density', but that just means it's not visible and includes a broad church of options. Plasma 'scatters' far better directionally than gas (that's what 'self focussing' means). So that's why the gas visible at X ray has no effect on lensing, which is indeed a proof of the plasma thesis. (Unless you really believe the nearby galaxy cluster 'bends' a pure vacuum - as current mainstream expects us to, but that gas does not).

          Now I've tried other models which don't work, and tried for some time to falsify (NOT verify!) this, but failed. Yet I still have an open mind.

          Now none of this has much to do with my essay, which just exposes the underlying quantum mechanism the 'particle' based lensing implies, and more than a handful of other anomalies. But you did ask.

          I'm sorry if your beliefs and Mario's thesis are different, that's fine let them be if you prefer, and as I recall I have no problem with any other parts, but I don't believe in hiding from inconvenient scientific truths, and hope you're the same.

          Peter

          (reposted from my string in response to Jim's reply)

            Jim

            Open access for particle physics in UK announced (IOP). All journal articles are to be free access, (as the work is mainly government funded). It's a start at least, perhaps for astronomy as well in ~13.7Gyr.!

            Peter