FractalDirac":3bqhiaiw said:
Dear Echo,
Looking for mistakes that aren't there again. Your buddy ramparts can't even get the chapter right, doesn't know a goo from a g44. I suspect, in your desperate attempt to rationalize the unrationalizable (i.e.,dark matter), this nasty little exchange of ours is going to go on until the next millenium.
lol. Dude. Do you want to respond to my questions instead of insulting me
in response to someone else? No, g_oo and g_44 are things that
you define. I want to know what definitions you're using. Sometimes g_44 is the time-time metric component, sometimes it's g_00 (is that the same as g_oo for you?). If you have both g_44 and g_00, then you're discussing a five-dimensional spacetime, which is an assumption I certainly haven't seen you mention, and is helpful to know.
I used the graphs at the end of the paper (found those pretty Doppler figures elsewhere). Fit those horizontal lines within the error bars in the figures, so the error bars were in fact used. Put that 5% spread in on the right side(you missed that one). There are 16 graphs at the end of that paper. Got it, 16 (remember that number now).
Added 2 galaxies I had graphs for in fig. 23-5, one being the Milky Way. I took out 2 galaxies from those 16 graphs, DD054 and NGC7793 because they clearly are galaxy nonhalo graphs, not halo. This is a halo study after all. So of a total of 18 galaxies available to find that halo flat line I took out two. Got it, TWO out 18. Note this is a study of nearby galaxies for which the halo is visible, could not do this with distant galaxies. Well, two of those these galaxies apparently were distant enough for the halo to be too dim. So there was not an iota of cherry picking here (I feel like screaming this).
Don't scream it, dude. That's not how science is done. Respond to your questions calmly and rationally. In fact, I see exactly what you did here. You picked out the 16 galaxies from the plots at the end of the paper. I missed that there were 16 there; thanks for pointing that out.
Your views are, erm, outside the mainstream. Presumably you're trying to convince people that you're right. Being combative and rude every time someone questions you, saying "got it" all the time as if we're idiots, and getting mad every time you're disagreed with is not the way to convince anybody.
This is my last post in response to you if you're going to continue to be aggressive and rude. If you're willing to have a respectful debate over the science, I'm more than happy to continue.
My question about the errors, however, remain. Look at NGC 3627. Within 1 sigma it could easily have a rotational velocity anywhere from 150 to 250 km/s. That should be reflected on your plot, yet you have a horizontal line with its name sitting contentedly right at 200 km/s, with a little note saying "+/- 5%". There is clearly more error than that, and it behooves you to be more honest about that. Honesty is admired in science, rarely do data perfectly fit predictions, and that doesn't make the predictions wrong. But when people make the data work with the predictions by, say, omitting 1 sigma errors, that generally sends off alarm bells for science. So again, I'll strongly recommend that you add error bars to your plot.
I need to point out that the principle source of error is in determining galaxy orientation. The doppler only gives radial velocity. So what spread there is (lets say in the 200km/sec bunch) is entirely understood. The quantization effect then could be exact in the halo! In that regard the most impressive data for me are those Doppler images, the quantization effect does indeed appear to be EXACT in the assymptotes! Note how the assymptotes flatten out and the km/sec numbers they flatten out too.
Figure 23-6 is essentially a list, I simply wanted to put the NCG designation in with the velocity designated somewhere, seemed to be an okay thing to do. So your question about an "x axis" here is a nonsecutar as well.
The x-axis thing wasn't a criticism, I was just pointing out that astronomers generally wouldn't plot data like that using that type of plot. When there's an x-axis, it should have a value, and if you were to plot these data as a histogram showing strong peaks at 100, 200, and 300 km/s, say, that would be very convincing. It's not a criticism, but a friendly note in case you ever do want to try to convince scientists.
The irony for me here is that a (neutralino) dark matter expert , he was one of you, found this SING stuff by doing exactly what you are doing, trying to debunk the UNdebunkable. I would not have even known about the SINGs nearby galaxy study if it hadn't been for him (it's pretty new anyway, 2008). He was trying to bebunk the implications of my new pde. Didn't.
That new pde allows for this quantization. It is a generally covariant generalization of the Dirac equation that does not require gauges or renormalization (the precision QED is done other ways here), given the general covariance its got this metric term attached to its kinetic component. That metric term carries the masses of three particles, tauon, muon and electron as background (metric) contributions. Normalize out everything but goo= 1+electron here (the normalized out part does play a role on the much larger scale of those great walls) and equate in the halo with the Schwarschild metric, use the centripetal force equation here also, then get the v=87km/sec. Include the contribution of galaxy mass, man you then come close to that 100km/sec. You actually do then have a quantum mechanical equation giving you a quantized metric!!!! Cool. Note we did not need any free parameters either.
This makes perfect sense. Your pathological rationalizations such as of those dark matter cloud shapes does not.
Alright, can you please clarify what you're doing here, briefly? The above description was useful but, of course, missing a lot, and without some more details it's hard to see what you're doing. I've skimmed your book but frankly, I don't have time to read a 100-page manifesto without having a real motivation to do so (which would be being convinced by you that there's something to this). So see this as an opportunity to show how well-motivated this work is so I actually do want to take the time out of my day to read this whole thing.
I know you think I'm an idiot for asking this, but again, please explain what g_oo refers to. Is it the same as g_00? If that's the case, how is that different from g_44 - i.e., which one is the time-time component (and then what is the other one)?
Why are you using the Schwarzschild metric? Is that supposed to describe the spacetime around these galaxies?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram