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

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

Dear Ben,

Thanks very much for reading my essay - I'm very glad you enjoyed it appreciated it. I really enjoyed your remarks and insights.

I have read both Theo Nieuwenhuizen's & Mario de Souza's essays and have had some interesting discussions with Mario. Frankly, offhand & forget what Theo's was about - I lost track of it when he didn't respond to some comment I made. Maybe I'll go back to it. I find Mario's galaxy evolution model very interesting, as long as his conception of lateral outflows is valid (I think it is). BTW, if you didn't notice there are some modeling references in my "Supplemental Info." & "Works Cited" sections that use classical dynamics and gravitation to more properly represent the mass distribution of spiral galaxies and describe their observed rotational characteristics. Unfortunately the dynamic link in the "Supp..." section is wrong for probably the best reference:

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.

I think some teacher(s) around 1960 ruined me for math - my grandson and two granddaughters love it! I may not be able to follow you essay very well, but I'll give it a shot tonight.

I now think (most of)) the ratings issues are mostly unfortunate misunderstandings perhaps mostly by those whose first language is not English. I also thing the rating scale of 1-10 (averaged, I think) produces a lot of ties, meaning that (especially for essays with few ratings like mine) small changes produce big swings in their position within the ranking ordered list.

I do have some more thoughts about my essay and some of the topics you mentioned - I'll try to bore you with them a little later.

Thanks very much for your interesting discussion!

Jim

BTW, after all the unintentional and any intentional dramatic ranking effects, as of this late writing IMO, based on my small sampling of essays read, the cream has risen to the top. I hope there are no more dramatic upheavals.

Despite my now below average ranking, I can take solace in knowing that the authors whose works I was most impressed with seemed to regard my essay very well! I was almost a finalist for a minute! Frankly, I am surprised by my essay's wild ranking swings and current low ranking, but then I'm retired, anyway.

Sincerely, Jim

Perter,

I'm too exhausted to delve into such minutia right now, but if their models are correct then we should hear of confirmed dark matter particle detections real soon!

BTW, as best I can determine, these researchers are still trying to fit galactic rotation curves to Keplerian expectations - I find no explanation as to why they are doing so.

My assertion is that there is no justification for expecting spiral galaxies to comply with the laws of planetary motion that expressly apply only to two-body gravitational relations - there's simply no need for dark matter to correct Keplerian rotation curves to produce those observed.

Interesting research though, or at least curious...

Thanks, Jim

Peter,

Thanks for the references. I'll try to review the research report later.

However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?

Also, at least the ESA article you referenced makes no mention of 'WHIM' as dark matter - it instead states that astronomers cannot find as much baryonic matter as expected:

"But there's a problem: the amounts of baryonic matter detected via astronomical observations in the distant, ancient Universe and in the nearby one do not match. Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

The article goes on to suggest that undetected WHIM constitutes the missing BARYONIC matter - not any dark matter.

Thanks,

Jim