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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim,

The sun is r=8kpc so 50kpc is the area I'm discussing, and the numbers work very well with 80% of mass. Remember I'm not 'trying to prove' any cause for the (virially stepped rather than flat) rotation curves, or indeed anything else. It is the optical effects and extinction distances consistent with CMBR scattering which relates to the particle densities that I'm considering and quantifying. According to J D Jackson and Cluster data a much lower density will still do, particularly if electron rich.

I'm sorry if you consider exchanging relevant information 'hounding you'. I've never seen any point in such 'partisan' views and 'biting back' when surely we're all only supposed to be on a search for truth.

Best wishes, and karma.

Peter

Jim,

And yet more gas further out of course does no harm at all to extinction distance. It also verifies the axiom of my essay, though I only required ions not molecular gases.

Remember it was you who commenced the exchange by claiming that axiomised quantum vacuum medium was just some false claim or misunderstanding not an astronomical finding. You asked for the evidence, but have flatly denied all such findings ever since, which proves my comment on your preference correct.

I'm sorry if you took offence but if we all took offence to apparent truths and rejected requested evidence conflicting with our postulates we'd fast run out of fences!! You do seem exceptionally 'prickly'! I always look for commonality with others not conflict, it's far more rewarding. I thought we'd found some, but your position reverted.

I'll try to make allowance for your sensitivity, but surely actually being visibly even handed in considering evidence, as the scientific method, is the best way to convince others you are being so. I've never seen any reason not to be, and indeed study potential falsifications more than verifications.

Why don't we just agree, that the findings are showing actual 'stuff' of quite adequate density for my thesis if not proven adequate to falsify your gravitational one, which needs higher densities.

Best wishes

Peter

Jim,

I remind you it was you who claimed my principal axiom was nonsense and suggested I'd pulled it out of thin air, you who just dismiss apparently conflicting evidence, and you who said; "it is you who doggedly pursue your own beliefs". Which is not only quite an insult but entirely baseless.

I'd merely said I accepted in advance from experience that "you may prefer to believe what you wish to", which is often true of many of us and only meant; OK, don't fret, I don't expect you to exactly embrace or accept the announced finding, but here it is for the record to evidence my axiom."

If you are that prickly then you can't expect people not to say so. I note you eschewed my olive branch, so I'll just say as far as I'm concerned I've provided the evidence you asked for and satisfactorily evidenced my axiom.

Peter