Peter,
OK, I'll play: why would it not be detectable?
Jim
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
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.
"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
Peter,
I must have mistyped 'ctrl-z, inadvertently truncating the prior comment.
To summarize, the stellar halo orbital study I referenced concluded that 4/5 of galactic mass was located within a radius of 50 kpc while the region from 50 - 150 kpc (the focus of your reference study) contained only 1/5, conflicting with your reference and arguing against the presence of any enormous peripheral mass (dark matter halo) thought to be necessary to produce the observed 'flat' galaxy rotation curves.
I don't have available energy to be completing your research for you, especially when it's only intended to hound me for what you erroneously percieve as my false "beliefs".
Jim
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
Peter,
I take offense to insinuations that I have unsubstantiated beliefs:
"I know you may prefer to believe what you wish to..."
You seem to be intent on personally insulting me each time you initiate an "information exchange". As I've said time and again, such personal remarks are not appropriate or welcome.
You may be discussing gas densities within 50 kpc, but the research you referred to was discussing gas located between 50 and 150 kpc. The news report you referenced stated:
"Lehner and collaborators searched for the signature of gas within about 100,000-300,000 light-years of galaxies, identifying this gas due to its strong hydrogen absorption, a known signature of circumgalactic gas."
Jim
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
Peter!
It's rude and inappropriate for you to continuously make personal remarks about me. Not only am I not interested in what you think of me, but as a result of those remarks, I have no interest in conversing with you at all.
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