• 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

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #56

Jim

SDSS 111 Data Release 9 including the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) and spectra of 1.35 million galaxies, has just been made public. This is 2 years work and gives a large database against which to test key aspects of theory. I'm not sure if you can get straight in, but maybe best to go through the SDSS Sky Server web site; http://skyserver.sdss3.org/public/en as you'll need some guidance on how to use it.

Unfortunately you still have to but copies of explanatory and interpretative papers, and it does not include the kinetic data, but it's a start. (You should find it consistent with my model and observations but let me know if you find any that appears not to be!).

I appreciate your expressed concern that my analysis of plasma 'dark matter' density and distribution may not accord with mainstream. Along with the announcement of the above in this months RAS magazine are the latest findings of dark matter within the solar system and particularly near the sun, including the comment; "...techniques used in the last 20 years were biased, underestimating the amount of dark matter." (99% certainty estimate). And yipee! the MNRAS paper is available on arxiv.org/pdf/1206.0015v2.pdf Of course it uses a model, the most precise yet, of the inner solar system, but maps the behaviour of the many 'K-dwarves' to quantify the density and distribution, so you still can't physically 'see' it. If we could of course it wouldn't be 'dark' matter.

There are other excellent articles this month, on angular momentum of stars, galaxy magnetic fields, and accretion disc MHD flows, so it's worth buying (Blackwell Publishing).

I hope all that may aid your quality of research. And thank you for the kind comment about the cream rising to the top.

Best wishes

Peter

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

Jim

I referred to other correlating methods used in halo density analysis, but couldn't locate any public access papers on angular momentum. There is however an article on this in the A&G Magazine I refer above (27th Sept string) which should be of great interest.

This looks at the question 'in reverse' assuming a low ion density then announcing the loss of angular momentum, (i.e. as 'clouds' form into 'bodies') as a major problem. Of course an increase in retained ion 'halo' density to that implied by gravitational behaviour resolves the problem.

The magazine isn't quite the MNRAS, but it is an easier read and full of information pertinent to your interests this month (aag@wiley.com).

In response to your note (in the 27th string) about finding 'dark matter' soon, I confirm I agree they won't, but predict they'll just keep finding increasingly higher ion densities, as they have for the last 40 years!

Best wishes

Peter

a month later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #59

Jim,

An MNRAS 'Dark Matter' paper also on arxiv. I thought of Mario and you when reading it.July 2012 It's consistent with scores of others, right or wrong, but uses a different method to constrain particle densities. It's treated as I suggest, simply as 'matter' that is not yet within our limited detection capabilites (which may soon be changed by Gaia etc).

'Optical' images are also improving, and right out to cluster scale. The concept or term 'exotic particles' is very rarely used in astronomy. The 'warm hot intergalactic medium' (WHIM) is far more familiar. i.e. as this weeks ESA bulletin; Combined Planck optical image

I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS I'll also post this on your own string.

    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

    Jim,

    That's right, and exactly what I've been saying. You seemed to have picked up on just one 'theorist' view that 'dark matter' can't be baryonic. In Astronomy (who found it after all!) that assumption has never been the case, thus your initial misunderstanding and objection to the fundamental thesis of my essay and Fig caption. But that means your last line is still wrong; 'dark' only means not yet detectable with current instruments, it does NOT necessarily mean 'non baryonic'.

    Back to your first paragraph; Yes of course WHIM emits detectable radiation; but;

    1. 'Detectable' does not imply detected. Improving instruments detect more and more.

    2. 'EM radiation' is the right term, but is NOT limited to the tiny 'optical' range!

    3. Much HAS INDEED been detected, as the image, at X-ray and other frequencies.

    Plasma n=1, so ions absorb and re-emit EM radiation, but don't change it unless moving, so don't otherwise give themselves away. Your comments betray the limited anthropocentric view of those unfamiliar with astronomy (many IN astronomy still have it!). As I said before, most detection is not done just in the insignificant 'visible' band but using spectroscopy, which includes the whole EM range from below radio to gamma wavelengths.

    Perhaps consider this. Take 3 're-emitting sources' (which may be n=1). One in the optical band, one infra red and one UV. Give each source a high velocity relative to Earth. The visible ('light') will be blue or red shifted out of the visible, and the IR become 'visible' if approaching, or UV if receding. This is generally termed Stokes/anti-Stokes up and down shifted Compton scattering. The CMBR has identified myriads of these moving 'frames last scattered'.

    Oblate spheroid halo's are much studied and oft referred. This Physics Today article refers, and is interesting anyway; PT65,2012. They are related to both kinetic decoupling and outflows - but that's a quite complex matter! (look up Sauron survey).

    I hope that helps give a clearer overview. i.e. I agree, there is probably no such thing as 'exotic' dark matter, but there's certainly still loads of yet un'seen' baryonic matter. And also current theory still contains much nonsense (including in of the concordance model referred in the link) I predict Gaia will detect a whole lot more of it.

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Peter,

      Once again you miss my points completely! I'll try again and be very direct.

      1. Wouldn't a Milky Way "Dark Matter halo" (I'm not making this up out of ignorant confusion - refer to the link) that was actually composed of baryonic WHIM or whatever, necessarily emit EM radiation? At the specified densities, why would such massive halos, comprising up to 90% of total galactic mass, not be detected?

      BTW, this is the reason that WIMPs were originally hypothesized - because it was considered that sufficiently dense baryonic matter configured to explain the observed rotational velocities in the context of Keplerian rotational curves would be detected! Do not confuse this 'Dark Matter halo' with the observed 'ordinary' MW galactic halo comprised of ~250 dwarf galaxies, star clusters and ancient stars - they are completely distinct. That's why the term 'Dark Matter halo' is necessary.

      2. To reiterate, the ESA bulletin (Combined Planck optical image) you referenced to explain WHIM clearly described it NOT as an explanation for, or alternative to WIMP, dark matter but only as an explanation for the baryonic matter that seems to be missing in the local universe:

      "... Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

      "A leading candidate for the location of these so-called 'missing baryons' is the warm-hot intergalactic medium or WHIM. The WHIM is the baryonic component of the cosmic web, a filamentary network of both dark and baryonic matter that is believed to pervade the Universe. Numerical simulations of the formation of cosmic structure predict that galaxies and galaxy clusters are embedded in the cosmic web, and that the WHIM might account for most of the baryonic matter in the local Universe. This network of tenuous gas ranges in temperature from 100,000 to several tens of millions of K and due to its extremely low density has proved very hard to detect."

      Ignoring your incredibly demeaning manner, you have an extraordinary ability to reinterpret any information as supporting your views!

      Best wishes,

      Jim

      • [deleted]

      • Post #63

      Jim,

      You asked; "Wouldn't a Milky Way "Dark Matter halo"...that was actually composed of baryonic WHIM or whatever, necessarily emit EM radiation? At the specified densities, why would such massive halos, comprising up to 90% of total galactic mass, not be detected?

      I'm sorry if you felt I hadn't answered that, but I wrote; it was because: "Detectable' does not imply detected" so our instruments are simply not yet quite sensitive enough for easy direct detection, but; "Improving instruments detect more and more."

      I also repeated my previous point that plasma ions ARE baryonic matter, and' "Plasma n=1, so ions absorb and re-emit EM radiation, but don't change it unless moving, so don't otherwise give themselves away."

      I'd quite forgotten how prickly and aggressive you could be, but I'm struggling to see how I can more directly answer your question. I get the impression you just react badly to anything inconsistent with what you believe. You thus entirely misinterpret my manner as 'demeaning'. I'm sorry if it seems it is, and if I went on to also give better background, but I'm only trying to help. In really direct terms;

      NO, baryonic matter does NOT normally "emit" EM radiation, it absorbs and "RE-emits" it (like all refraction and reflection), and NO, if it is plasma we would NOT then 'detect' any change in the radiation (i.e. we would not 'detect the presence of' the plasma), and certainly not in the optical range.

      Having said that, where there is pair production (ions) there is then also some (bound) molecular gas (baryonic), which IS increasingly 'detectable'. I confirmed there are a number of other ways both CAN be directly detected including;

      Kinetics (the particles move so affect lambda).

      Flaring (I've found a free link; APJLett732 2011).

      Direct at different wavelengths; i.e. sub.mm; See my Fig 1 here; Centaurus A

      I try not to seek 'support' for my postulations but genuine falsification. More consistent re-interpretation of findings is the heart scientific progress, and is indeed what you are doing, but please do help by identifying any specific point where you think I haven't been objective or consistent..

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Peter,

        OK, I'll play: why would it not be detectable?

        Jim

        Peter,

        Why does the hot intracluster medium emit x-rays? Don't all hot gasses emit EM radiation? How could dense baryonic plasma configured as galactic 'dark matter halos' avoid emitting EM radiation and detection by astronomers?

        Regarding: "I try not to seek 'support' for my postulations but genuine falsification..." Please refer to my prior comment in which I quoted from your referenced 'supporting documentation', (Combined Planck optical image):

        "... The WHIM is the baryonic component of the cosmic web, a filamentary network of both dark and baryonic matter that is believed to pervade the Universe..."

        Didn't you earlier state, regarding the referenced links:

        "I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'?"

        I very clearly initially asked:

        "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?"

        You responded by repeating past lectures about not all EM radiation being visible and stating:

        "Your comments betray the limited anthropocentric view of those unfamiliar with astronomy (many IN astronomy still have it!). As I said before, most detection is not done just in the insignificant 'visible' band but using spectroscopy, which includes the whole EM range from below radio to gamma wavelengths."

        What could possibly have made you think that I don't understand that the visible spectrum is a small segment of the entire EM frequency spectrum?

        Please discontinue belittling remarks!

        Sincerely

        Jim

        Jim,

        I suspect I've run out of different ways to answer. You seem confident you already know what's out there, and all 'findings' from data are only interpretations after all, so if you're really not willing to change your own view why ask? I really don't 'know' what's out there, and do change my opinion, which is why I study a score of new papers a week to keep up with findings and form the most consistent view. Is that not how it should be done?

        I'll try not to be 'belittling', but when you don't seem to see the clear conclusions from the descriptions I'm sorry, but I could only assume you were making some wrong assumptions. Shall I try with just some simple one liners;

        Because it is significantly ions, which don't 'emit' radiation unless being charged.

        Ions also don't change the received charge signal so are largely 'invisible'.

        We CAN and DO see bound molecular gas, where 'hot', at various wavelengths.

        Most gas is too 'small', diffuse & cool to 'see' at 100mm let alone 100 light years!

        Poor instrumentation. We see much more now, and will see much more in a few years.

        Did you not 'see' the clear oblate spheroid halo of Centaurus A in my photo??! Please also explain if you don't agree with or accept the 5 points above.

        I did explain about X rays (delta lambda) if you look back, but will do so again; Excitation (coupling charge) does it, as does rapid motion towards the sensor. It may be emitted at UV, but if the gas is approaching us and we are approaching the gas (on our orbit) it is scattered (Stokes 'up' or blue shifted) to X-ray. I did previously explain that's how we ascertain the rotational velocity of galaxies.

        If you wish to actually 'see' the most dense and energetic bits we CAN detect directly perhaps Google; 'galaxy halo shape images'. A very good short summary of a recent finding is here, but from behavioural not 'visible' evidence. Nevertheless it certainly can't just be dismissed; Beachball.

        Going on the full range of observational evidence I find one interpretation overwhelmingly consistent compared to all others. Like yours it is not quite the Concordance model, but it resolves the problems within that. Are you sure you are not distorting your conclusions by discarding the vast majority of 'observation' just because it's not 'direct'?

        Peter

        Peter,

        Why do you repeatedly focus on making personal evaluations - I'm not interested in your assessments or comments about me.

        Intracluster medium

        "In astronomy, the intracluster medium (ICM) is the superheated plasma present at the center of a galaxy cluster. This is gas heated to temperatures of between roughly 10 and 100 megakelvins and consisting mainly of ionised hydrogen and helium, containing most of the baryonic material in the cluster. The ICM strongly emits X-ray radiation."

        "The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei."

        "The ICM is composed primarily of ordinary baryons (mainly ionised hydrogen and helium). This plasma is enriched with heavy elements, such as iron. The amount of heavy elements relative to hydrogen (known as metallicity in astronomy) is roughly a third of the value in the sun. Most of the baryons in the cluster (80-95%) reside in the ICM, rather than in the luminous matter, such as galaxies and stars. However, most of the mass in a galaxy cluster consists of dark matter..."

        I repeat, how could 'dark matter halos' actually composed of baryonic matter (as you propose) of sufficient mass density to account for the flat rotation curve of spiral galaxies (up to 95% of total galactic mass contained within a radius ~3 times that of the galactic disk) - not emit EM radiation detectable by current astronomical equipment?

        Please refrain from making any personal remarks about me - I'm not in the least interested in your opinion of me.

        Jim

        Jim,

        I'm trying to understand from the same evidence (partly at least) how such apparently diverse conclusions can be drawn. How evidence is assimilated is central. I've made no personal remarks, but I'm sure you agree that 'how' science is done varies to great effect.

        I think I now understand better. The quotes you give can mislead, for a very good reason. They discuss what HAS been directly detected, i.e. the high energy particles. Any assumption from that that only high energy particles exist is wholly wrong, as we know locally. That is the assumption you seem to have made, which doesn't account for the vast majority COLD 'dark matter' which is what CDM stands for! (and I deduce from a high weight of evidence; 'baryonic').

        If you have any doubts you only have to consider a 'cloud chambers'. We cannot 'see' em wave energy passing through it. Even a good vacuum includes high ion densities, and we can't 'see' any lateral scattering from that because plasma is self focussing. We thus only see the a light pulse passed through it unaltered at the far end. If however there is molecular gas, from H+ He+O+ upwards, we find it is scattered laterally, i.e. we can SEE the EVIDENCE of the pulse having charged the particles, so they then 'glow.' i.e. if there is not substantial em energy charging the particles, as there mostly is not in space, then we cannot SEE the gas particles at 100lyr and more than we can at 100mm.

        The free electrons and protons cannot of course be seen via secondary scattering AT ALL because plasma does NOT DO 'secondary' scattering. (All well known and in my essay).

        I'm sorry it took me a little time to track down the assumption causing the diversity. I think that does now comprehensively and irrefutably explain why Baryonic CDM or even WHIM Halo's don't; "emit EM radiation detectable by current astronomical equipment?" (Gaia is only 'optical' but will be 400,000 times more sensitive than eyesight -vastly better than current instruments).

        There's no doubt it's there. The only thing we're guessing about is precisely how much. Going on local shock densities it could easily be more than adequate for the gravitational effects (including 'curved space-time') but as you say, it also may not.

        I really hope that now put's this to bed and you better understanding the physics I invoke, and reasoning behind my postulates.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Peter,

        I know what CDM stands for, thanks. Wimps are proposed to be non-interacting, therefore generally cold, so that they would not be detectable.

        As I understand, the quotation explains that the intracluster medium emits x-rays because it is compressed by gravitation, producing physical particle interactions and frictional heating. I think this is true for all baryonic particles of mass.

        I expect that baryonic mass as dense as that required to produce observed 'flat' rotation curves would necessarily interact, producing frictional heating and the emission of EM radiation.

        How can dense baryonic matter be cold? Since its particles would collide, (in straightforward terms) they would be heated and charged, correct?

        I don't doubt improved detection equipment will likely find more sparse, non-emitting baryonic matter in intergalactic space.

        I do not accept the idea that baryonic matter in any form can fulfill the requirements specified for dark matter, especially at the mass densities required to fit observed galaxy rotation curves to Keplerian expectations.

        Jim

        2 months later

        Jim,

        Interesting revelations re haloes from the AAS meeting this year. I thought of you with this one, providing what you were asking for, a direct observation, and of a far more dense and wide halo than previously assumed, right in line with my DFM predictions. But I've yet seen no paper.

        I know you may prefer to believe what you wish to, but nevertheless here it is to be falsified;

        AAS 2013 Meeting, Direct Massive Halo Findings Reported.

        Best wishes.

        Peter

          Peter,

          IMO it is you who doggedly pursue your own beliefs - while snipping at my ankles! The evidnece you refer to again does not appear: the link returns an website error page indicating page not found.

          Again further researching you claims with a site search does return a hit from Nov. of last year, but I hope this is not what you're referring to: Astronomers use advanced equipment aboard Hubble to reveal galaxies' most elusive secrets.

          That article seems to have been based on the research report: Not Dead Yet: Cool Circumgalactic Gas in the Halos of Early Type Galaxies, which uses conjecture and admittedly simple approximations methods to derive at some unreliable galactic mass estimates for the MW.

          Instead, allow me to direct your attention to research that is currently in publication - please see my extensive comments for additional info. & links to relevant research: MW mass estimate halved.

          Please stop snipping at me with incomplete information.

          Jim

          Peter,

          A Google search finally did locate the article you were trying to link to - the correct link: Notre Dame astronomers find massive supply of gas around modern galaxies.

          This research seems to be focused on peripheral galactic gas metalicity and its influence in star formation. The only mention of galactic mass estimates in the articles is the statement "the circumgalactic gas probed in this study was also found to have a mass comparable to that of all the gas within the galaxies themselves, thus providing a substantial reservoir for fueling continued star formation in modern galaxies." There's no explanation of how they arrived at that conclusion, but, again, previous gravitational studies had found that dark matter halos must provide nearly 10 times the galactic mass provided by ordinary matter.

          I didn't find any source for the research report, but its amazing how many news reports that include the sentence, "The members' work, "The Bimodal Metallicity Distribution of the Cool Circumgalactic Medium at z

          Jim,

          I just doggedly try to falsify models, which is a little different. Indeed I've just falsified part of the whole logical foundation and ditched it, which actually then exposed a far better one, also suggesting the fundamental cause of the 'incompleteness' identified in Godel's theorem. Not being afraid to abandon assumptions sure seems the way ahead. At least that's what I'm sticking with.

          Thanks for the other links. Very interesting. You'll note the Reid estimate quoted was rather high though, others being from 200bn solar masses upwards, so the 'drop' to estimated 500-1,000bn must be considered relatively. Her method was also one of the 'indirect' ones you decried, but nevertheless worth studying.

          Sorry about the dud link earlier, try this; (link:http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/01/11/notre.dame.astronomers.find.massive.supply.gas.around.modern.galaxies]Halo finding{/link].

          It was under; "Notre Dame astronomers find massive supply of gas around modern galaxies."

          Happy new year.

          Peter