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

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

I've reposted my response to Peter from his essay's blog below.

Peter,

We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of mine. He has nothing to do with this discussion - this is just between you and me.

Secondly, as I have provided several sources that conclude that the separation of lensing effects from x-ray emitting gases in high velocity galaxy collisions provides evidence for the existence of enormous masses of not just 'non-visible' matter but effectively non-interacting non-baryonic, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Please see Chandra posting. This is not just 'little old me' making this claim, it seems to be the consensus "mainstream" astrophysical community.

As I understand, 'undisturbed' galaxy cluster morphology can be generalized as tending towards a spherical distribution of mass centered around a common center of mass, generally coincident with the geometric center of the cluster. There the gaseous intracluster medium is densest and hottest, emitting high energy x-rays. There is also often an enormous galaxy located near the center of mass.

The consensus interpretation of collided galaxy clusters, as I understand, is that the disperse gasses comprised of baryonic particles physically interact upon collision, absorbing their momentum slowing their forward motion.

It is thought that the colliding clusters' sparse galaxies do not physically interact - their momentum allows each group of galaxies to continue their established relative motion until gravitation eventually slows their progress.

The gravitational lensing effects of collided galaxy clusters are typically coincident with the location of the two separated groups of galaxies. However, since the collective mass estimated for the galaxies is thought to be insufficient to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects, it is presumed that enormous amounts of dark matter coincident with the galaxies is contributing most of the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational lensing effects.

It is crucial to understand that the inferred dark matter could only be coincident with the two groups of non-interacting galaxies if the dark matter was also non-interacting. The only interaction that could have occurred between the two groups of galaxies and any possible dark matter was gravitational.

The principal requirement for the inferred dark matter is that it could only have gravitationally interacted with any of the clusters' mass upon collision. As I understand, the p[articles of colliding plasma clouds would physically interact much like the hot gases in the intracluster medium - their forward progress could not have continued such that they would located coincidentally with the sparse, non-interacting galaxies.

If you can explain how ionized gas or plasma particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters could have avoided all physical interaction with other disperse particles, allowing their momentum to carry them along with the clusters' galaxies, I'd be very happy to try to understand.

Sincerely, Jim

Peter,

Yes - this is great news! I hope this or some similar model suppoting free access is adopted by all other fields of study.

Thanks, Jim

Hi Wilhelmus,

Whether my status as a layperson in the field of physics is or isn't a bad "proposition" for me, I'm compelled to make that honest disclosure up front so that others might realize might level of expertise. As to my professional standing, I worked exceedingly hard for several decades as a highly accomplished information systems analyst. When I raise a very specific technical issue I expect a professional response, not a lecture on my demeanor. Thank you for your personal advice...

I see you have no specific thoughts regarding my essay. Thanks for your comment.

Jim

Dear Chris,

Thanks so much for reading my essay - and especially your kind remarks!

I understand (in principle) that general relativity is fundamentally more accurate than classical physics and at least more correctly and more completely describes the physical effects of gravitation. However, I must take exception to the statement that "The existence of Dark Matter is admitted in order to justify Newtonian theory." IMO, a more correct statement would be that 'The existence of Dark Matter is admitted in order to justify the misapplication of overly-simplistic methods of approximation based on pre-Newtonian physics.'

Reading your paper, "High-energy scalarons in R^2 gravity as a model for Dark Matter in galaxies" (which I found very interesting, to the extent that I could comprehend), I think I should explain that, in my view, the fundamental issue with galaxy gravitational evaluations is not (when correctly applied) Newtonian physics, it is the expedient misapplication of even simpler methods of approximation by astronomers and others. There are several references to research in my 'Supplemental Info." and "Cited Works" sections (the latter correcting one erroneous URL) that more correctly represent galactic mass configurations using Newtonian dynamics and gravitation to successfully represent observed galaxy rotation. There is also a reference using general relativity - Fred Cooperstock also takes the view that the failing is inherent in Newtonian physics.

In my information systems analyst view, the application overly-simplistic methods of gravitational approximation to more complex structures introduces scale variant errors in the estimation of both non-luminous masses and the effects of gravitational interactions among discrete objects within very large composite structures. As I think is inherent in gravitational evaluation methods prescribed in general relativity, galactic disks are self-gravitating aggregations of massive objects, avoiding at least the errant evaluation of gravitational effects.

I have a lot of thoughts regarding gravitational lensing effects attributed to dark matter, especially through the compound lens that must be presented by galaxies within galaxy clusters. While certainly a 'localized' large scale structure such as a galaxy cluster must produce a collective curvature of spacetime, each relatively compact galaxy must also produce a more intensive, if more localized, curvature of spacetime. I suspect that generalizing the magnitude of lensing effects produced to consider only the overall structure in order to facilitate evaluation may introduce large scale errors into the results. I think (not comprehending math) I may have detected some perhaps over-generalizations in your equations - is that possible?

I've had some very long and tedious discussions with Peter Jackson attempting to explain that the Bullet Cluster's separation of gas and non-interacting masses does falsify his assertion that ionized gasses produce the effects attributed to dark matter. While I agree with him that non-detectable gasses represent an under-appreciated quantity at all scales, the decelerated gasses comprising intracluster media apparently cannot produce galaxy cluster lensing effects.

I think it's much more telling that dark matter is almost always coincidentally located with galaxies. Perhaps, in a literary sense, it is dark matter that cannot exist without galaxies! I think the method often used to estimate 'ordinary' galaxy mass based on luminosity is a perfect fit for main sequence stars, whose mass directly produces luminosity. However, applying that method to galaxies generally ignores a significant independently contributing factor of non-numinous (and often luminosity obscuring disperse) masses. As I understand, it's generally resulted in spiral galaxies often requiring large amount of compensatory dark matter - they also contain relatively large volumes of dust and gas. This, in conjunction with simplified methods of approximating gravitation relying too much on a compound object's center of mass and not considering the effects of so many discretely interacting objects, often produces underestimated masses for large scale composite masses.

To conclude all of this, I think that if the original requirement truly establishing the existence of dark matter in galaxies was a product of improper analysis, as I think I've established, and galactic rotation can be explained in the context of existing physics, then it should follow that galactic dark matter does not exist, at least in significant amounts. While I agree that this does not preclude its existence throughout the rest of the universe, I think that cosmologists rely entirely on galactic dark matter estimates for their presumptive universal proportion of dark matter to 'ordinary' matter. To that extent, if there's no requirement for galactic dark matter it should follow that there's no justification for cosmological dark matter, no matter how expedient it might be for cosmological analyses. At least that's the way this information systems analyst sees it...

Thanks again, Jim

Dear Wilhelmus,

Sorry if I was testy - I'm easily exhausted these days.

Thanks very much for reading my essay - I think you've understood it well.

Your idea that large scale compound masses behave as fluids seems to me to have merit, although I can't follow the math of general relativity or fluid dynamics. I think there are strong similarities. Certainly compound objects comprised of billions of loosely bound interacting discrete objects of mass must in at least some ways behave as particles in a fluid! Their individual masses and bindings are more variable than water molecules', though. It seems things are always more complex than we'd like!

Best wishes, Jim

Dear Chris,

Firstly, did I not adequately demonstrate that galactic dark matter was inferred by the simple misapplied specification that objects in spiral galaxies should rotate in compliance with Kepler's third law of planetary motion? That erroneous conclusion was not based on any analysis employing Newtonian dynamics or gravitation.

I'm neither a physicist nor mathematician, so obviously your challenge would not be attainable for me personally. I'm certainly not aware of any method to precisely describe the motions of individual stars within the disks of spiral galaxies.

However, there are several researchers who (as I understand) correctly describe the rotational characteristics of spiral galaxies using only classical dynamics and gravitation (specifically Feng & Gallo below). From my "Works Cited" (without links):

James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.

Joanna Jalocha et al. "Is dark matter present in NGC4736? An iterative spectral method for finding mass distribution in spiral galaxies." Astrophysical Journal 679 (May 20 2008): 373-378. doi:10.1086/533511. arXiv:astro-ph/0611113v3.

Of course, they reference prior works. Then there's also Fred Cooperstock's most recent analysis using general relativity:

J. D. Carrick and F. I. Cooperstock. "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies." (2010). arXiv:1101.3224v1.

Another report you might find interesting does not directly address galactic rotation but rather the orbits of halo objects and their implications for dark matter halos:

Lukasz Bratek et al. "Keplerian Ensemble Approximation. The issue of motions of Galactic halo compact objects." (2011). arXiv:1108.1629v2.

It its somewhat related to another recent work:

M. S. Pawlowski , J. Pflamm-Altenburg, P. Kroupa. "The VPOS: a vast polar structure of satellite galaxies, globular clusters and streams around the Milky Way." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 423 2 (June 2012): 1109-1126. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x, arXiv:1204.5176v1.

I really can't fully evaluate the physics or mathematics involved - perhaps you'll find some shortcoming. Please do let me know if you find any issues - I have been in contact with all of the authors and can try to mediate a resolution if necessary.

Sincerely, Jim

Sergey,

I do have an aversion to equations, especially since retiring. If I understand, though, if a new rating is is made for an essay that is slightly lower than the existing average rating for that essay, the new average rating will be reduced. Is that correct?

There may be another consideration in the ranking of essays by rating: if an essay's rating was tied or very close to many other essays, even a slight reduction in rating could significantly reduce an essay's position withing the rating ordered list. In that case a single rating (even one that is not so 'bad') could produce a large drop in the essay rankings.

Thanks very much for explaining. Once I began watching the rankings I noticed in particular that my essay repeatedly jumped up & down between ~50 & 100 in very dramatic swings. It's now settled down to something >100. Well, I never hoped to be a finalist anyway and don't have any professional aspirations.

Sergey, I sincerely apologize if I (and others) unfairly accused you of making excessively low ratings. Please consider that your 'rating announcement' postings called people's attention to whatever change was produced. At any rate, I'll now consider that you must have given me a fair and deserved rating.

Sorry again, Jim