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 Jim,

Thanks for your kind clarifications on your ideas on the the misapplication of overly-simplistic methods of approximation based on pre-Newtonian physics. I well know Fred Cooperstock, he is a great scientist who sometimes disagrees with various extremisms of orthodox science.

I propose you a challenge. You should try to find the CORRECT methods of approximation based on Newtonian physics in order to see if that they could carefully, i.e from a rigorous mathematical treatment, explain the motion of the stars in a galaxy.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Jim,

I do not understand fluid mechanics, as said I am just a retired architect, the only thing I thought of when reading your essay was when I stirred the milk in a cup of coffee, you also see these galaxy forms, maybe this approach is a different one, just trating a whole galaxy as a fluid. You have more insight as I have so perhaps think about it.

thanks for being on good terms again.

Wilhelmus

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear James,

I tried rate your essay repeatedly but it is impossible. So I see that in this Contest I was tricked by the Contest system of rating. Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed? It is a pity but FQXi up to now do not answer my questions in 3 letters to them.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear James,

Just now I sent a letter to mail@fqxi.org :

Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?

James, may you do the same and ask FQXi about it?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear James,

Thanks for the interesting essay, and in particular for pointing out the simple but important point that Kepler's laws are totally inadequate for describing the gravitational dynamics of a system with significant extended mass distribution. I suppose an extreme example could be found at a much smaller scale by simply considering a gas giant... it would be ridiculous to expect the outer layers to move in a Keplerian fashion with respect to the center.

Coming from the math side, I am presently trying to make up my mind what to think about the "dark matter" hypothesis, so any well-reasoned essay of this sort is valuable to me. Personally, I suspect that the scientific community still has an imperfect appreciation for scale dependence in nature... for instance, I think that dark energy is probably something "different" than gravity. I think there are at least "five different scales," but that's a long story... I discuss that in section 3 of my essay here if you're interested, but most of the essay is not about dark matter.

Have you read the submissions by Theo Nieuwenhuizen and Mario de Souza? They give totally different takes on the same subject. These two, together with yours, give me a reasonably diverse perspective as a starting point, I hope.

By the way, I noted the discussion above about ratings. I think that there is a lot of bad behavior going on in this regard. I just rated your essay, having just now read it... I rated it honestly, on the basis of what I learned from reading it. It would be unethical for me to tell you what the rating was, but your essay moved up 34 places as a result. The fact that a single honest rating would make such a difference at this stage in the contest tells me that many people are rating others low just to gain an advantage. Anyway, it would be better if we could ignore the "ratings game" entirely, but I have made up my mind to give an honest rating to every essay I have time to read... otherwise the contest is dominated by those who down-rate others out of self interest.

I enjoyed your perspective! Take care,

Ben Dribus

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

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

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.

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