Negatively Curved Space Can Explain Galactic Rotation Curves

[kmarinas86]

Negatively curved space does not exist where there is positive curvature (i.e. mass).<br /><br />The greater the distance between the stars, the greater the concavity of the negative space curvature lens which dims the stars and therefore altering judgement of their distances with respect to the nearest stars' parallax and <b>their</b> brightness.<br /><br />Dense regions of the galaxy have less negative space curvature and thus their apparent density is more like the actual.<br /><br />http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v479n2/35529/fg1.gif<br /><br />Dense centers of galaxies correspond to steep increases in velocity with increasing radii.<br /><br />Circular Orbits<br />Acceleration = 4 pi Radius / Period^2<br /><br />Velocity * Period = Circumference = 2 pi Radius<br />Velocity = 2 pi Radius / Period<br />Acceleration = Velocity^2 / Radius<br />Turning (Orbiting) Radius * Acceleration = Velocity^2<br /><br />Negatively curved space affects especially the appearance of low density regions of galaxies.<br /><br />Suppose the Radii of a star's orbit is exagerrated by a factor of x.<br /><br />An R exaggerated visually by 'x' implies that A is underestimated by 'x^2' and implies a factor of 'x^1/2' differentiating theoretical velocity based on disk brightness with the actual velocity of the disk.<br /><br />Lower average density within a star's orbit implies greater visual exaggeration of its orbital radii around the galaxy<br /><br />Galaxies with denser cores will be said by scientists to have very little "dark matter" in the center. But rather, it is the higher density of these cores which result in more accurate Newtonian account of velocity (which depends on a star's visual orbiting radius) versus the actual data. The galaxies that are the least dense are said to have more "dark matter". But rather, it's the greater concavity of space curvature in low densit

 

[joshbe]

wanna explain that in simpler terms?

 

[le3119]

I think NYU's Georgi Dvali may have correctly explained "dark matter" as a feature of gravity at intergalactic scales. Are you familiar with his "modified" laws of gravity he proposes to explain this phenomenon? <br /><br />His press release from Feb 2005: http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/200

 

[frobozz]

Hmm, if gravity is realized as a curvature of space-time, I am curious how this law might have been realized mathematically? Do they simply make a subtle change to the curvature tensor so that if you restrict to 4-space you see what we observe within some error level? Anyway have a link to the paper?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">wanna explain that in simpler terms?</font><br /><br />Yes I do.<br /><br />If you are familar with lenses, then I can help you.<br /><br />Convex lenses zoom in while Concave lenses zoom out.<br /><br />The mass inside each celestial body is responsible for "convex-shaped" curvature that is expressed through gravity. Large clumps of matter, like galactic clusters acts as "gravitational lenses" for light, and these zoom in the objects behind them.<br /><br />http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=gravitational+lens<br /><br />In my hypothesis, the spaces between the stars and especially the galaxies act like a concave lens, which is just the opposite of convex. The result would be that the stars appear farther away than they really are, and by these means, we are left with the illusion that we cannot travel to the stars, thinking that they are too far away to reach.<br /><br />If this hypothesis is true, and if there is a huge zooming out effect, then it has huge implications on the possibility of interstellar travel.<br /><br />The basis for the existence of curved spaced (both postive and negative) is supported by General Relativity.<br />http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec15.html

 

[yevaud]

Well, a question for you then: if true, by what amount, what factor, are the other stars closer to us? 10%? 50% Right next door? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Well, a question for you then: if true, by what amount, what factor, are the other stars closer to us? 10%? 50% Right next door?</font><br /><br />It will have to depend on the energy density of our region of the galaxy. Since we are located on the edge of one of the smaller Milky Way's arms (Orion), we are in a relatively less dense region.<br /><br />Until I can find a function that relates the "exaggeration of distance" variable with the "energy density" variable. I cannot know exactly.<br /><br />To answer, I will have to do the following:<br />Given the mass that it already orbits, plot the discrepancy in velocity in order to find out which orbital radius the stars would have to be to maintain that velocity.<br />Plot "exaggeration of radius" vs. "average energy density within orbit" on 2-axes and see what the function could be.<br /><br />The hypothesis fails if no relational function can be found. If there is a correlation, the hypothesis is promising. The last problem then is to find an accurate and elegant function, derived from the essence of General Relativity that predicts the velocities of stars in any newly observed galaxy with 100% accuracy (i.e. with no suprises). Obviously, with my current education and position, I cannot perform the last step.<br /><br />So far, the hypothesis is compatible with the fact that many elliptical galaxies (which are relatively denser than spirals) are said to have not much, if any, dark matter (due the greater compliance with Newtonian laws). It is also compatible with the fact that the discrepancy of velocity is very negligible at the cores of spiral galaxies.

 

[kmarinas86]

I worked on the plot for Milky Way Galaxy and found a good inverse relationship between number of solar masses per area of the galactic plane (planar density) and the exaggeration of radius.<br /><br />Later on, when I find another plot for a different galaxy, I will try the same thing. If my hypothesis is correct, then the values on the two dimensional plot for planar density and exaggeration of radius should be the same as it is for the Milky Way or any other galaxy.<br /><br />Excel File<br />http://home.sailormoon.com/kmarinas86/galaxyrotationtheory.xls

 

[yevaud]

Well, I don;t know that I neccessarily agree with your hypothesis, one the one hand...<br /><br />...on the other, Astronomers are beginning to suspect many of the standard candles used are off, or dead wrong.<br /><br />I suppose it's as good a hypothesis as any I've heard. Keep us informed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

I accidently uploaded the old version of my file which was incomplete - now here is the full version:<br /><br />http://home.sailormoon.com/kmarinas86/galaxyrotationtheory.xls