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,

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