• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

Whats wrong with this theory?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
MeteorWayne: In order for the halo to cause the consistent orbal velosity via only its shear mass as you have stated, the halo would have to hold 95% (approximation) of the total mass of a galaxy. So now we have a halo that is 20x more massive than the galaxy itself and the only evidence we have of the this is that the stellar velocities? If this is true then dark matter fills in most of the universe that we think of being a relative vacuum! The dark matter halos of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies should be overlapping at this point! And this huge amount of matter is completely invisible?<br /><br />This just compounds this issues I have stated in previous posts. <br /><br />kmarinas86: How does your post relate to the current discussion?<br /><br />Hicup: Thank you! I am pretty much as you describe yourself in that I have no formal schooling in the field, and must work with raw logic and the laws of physics as I understand them.<br /><br />six_strings: Yes it reaches us but it is of such a small magnitude that we can not detect it with current technology (as I explained in my original post). No offense, but I feel you are just throwing concepts at me that you are finding on the net without any real personal understanding of them yourself. This is making it difficult for me to discuss them with you. You keep saying I am discounting dark matter as a whole but I have repeatedly said/shown that I am only discounting one single anomaly attributed to dark matter. I am starting to feel that you are trying to be intentionally confrontational (but that could just be my frustration lol)<br /><br />
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>I was following the link Six Strings gave me and if you look here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem<br /><br />This shows a fairly straight line velocity for all stars regardless of distance from galactic center. I used this graph as my source and if the graph is incorrect I apologies for trusting Wiki too much lol.</i><br /><br />Well, there's gross scale and fine scale. At a much finer scale than the Wiki information, there is definite evidence of clumping; a mechanism of which, on a larger scale, is purported to be responsible for superclusters and great voids, and all manners of grand structure.<br /><br /><i>If this graph is correct then it would make more sense that velocity is established during galactic formation causing this across the board consistent velocity than from some external source, no?</i><br /><br />Now ain't that hard to say for certain. Dark Matter is unknown territory, and how and when it appeared is anyone's guess (though it appears to have been present during the age of the earliest galaxies).<br /><br />All that can be said is that the outer regions of imaged galaxies display abnormaly high rotational velocities. Some sort of mass that is not possible to image or detect directly is the most likely suspect. <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>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Yevaud: May I ask why it is more likely than stellar velocity is mechnism of the formation of the galaxy? Or that super massive black holes create this effect through their gravity well?<br /><br />My problem is that to believe the current theory's model you have to believe that 95% of the universe is a completely new form of matter that is made up of previously unobserved particles that are completely invisible (we can not see it, nor does it obstruct light). There is a lot of assumption here!<br /><br />I do not claim to have the answer to this mystery, but there are ways to get this result with far less assumption. <br /><br />Occam's Razor....
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">kmarinas86: How does your post relate to the current discussion?</font><br /><br />It's about dark matter. I started talking about it (when the discussion was on a different page) because you had a theory and I decided to present my alternative - that is all. Let's not get into a semantic argument =P.<br /><br />From one new assumption, combined with the known function for gravitational time dilation, I get the very simple formula.<br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/b/6/3b65a92e2f2107be546f314b32d658b3.png<br /><br />The new assumption is:<br /><br />Total mass-energy loss due to gravity = Net energy of gauge bosons emitted as a result of gravitational influence = 2GM^2/r = twice the gravitational binding energy at surface = Change in Pressure*Volume = sum(Force * Distance) leading to the formation of the object - sum(- Force * Distance) leading to the pressure of all emitted radiation = 2 * (sum(Force * Distance) leading to increasing gravitational binding energy)<br /><br />While this may, in a qualitative sense, represent many equalities, mathematically, it is only one new assumption:<br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/8/7/687bfe7e79aff4cee7d44a1709ca870c.png<br /><br />Corresponding only to the effect of gravity that leads to emission of gauge bosons.<br /><br />From:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmarinas86<br /><br /><font color="yellow">This implies that dark matter is just an illusion due to a sea of negative pressure (the negative pressure is equal to the net energy of gauge boson emission divided by volume); if true, it implies that dark matter is an illusion created by negative pressure that causes stars furthest from galaxies to move in</font>
 
S

six_strings

Guest
Wha? I thought I had valid questions? I never implied anything malicious in anyway… You keep suggesting I have something against you, when I implied or said nothing of the sort… I actually warranted your theory with some substance, but it includes a couple explainations I don't favor accepting...<br /><br />I guess maybe you might be hurt I said your theory needs work earlier. It was not the intent to offend but only my observation of your theory. I thought the basis of this thread was to see what’s wrong with this theory… My statement was not meant to be derogatory. If this is why you are taking an issue with me?<br /><br />It wasn’t like I was biased on anyside, when I learned of information to support your explanation there may be other forces responsible for galactic spin not related to dark matter, I posted it… <br /><br />Making assumptions concerning my knowledge of the concepts I brought up is merely arrogance. Although the only real questions I brought up were your accounting of dark matters relation to galactic spin AND why we would would not be able to observe this outer universe. Your explaination of the later is lacking. The hubble deep space images show 100's if not 1000's of objects in a field of view smaller then a pin head. If this outer universe you theorize, is soo sparsely populated with matter and sooo far away, I don't have the math right in front of me, (nor feel a need to further educate you with <b><i> net </i></b>references, since you seem to find it offensive) but there is a point where the effects and abilities of gravity to cause this accelerating effect (in the form you decribed it) will become negligible, and must be attributed to something else. To continue, I understand you <b><i>later </i></b>explained it's only <b> some</b> anomolies of dark matter you dismiss (although it really seems it's <b>all</b>) but, brought up again because you complained about it being unproven, and that it ws being used to disprove your theory. I don't think a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Well I have to admit I prefer your theory far more than the currently accepted one!<br /><br />It doesn't have all the messy new particles and invisble translucents matter. To be honest, if your theory was the currently accepted one I wouldn't of bothered to contemplate another lol.<br /><br />Have you sent it in for peer review yet?
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Well I have to admit I prefer your theory far more than the currently accepted one!<br /><br />It doesn't have all the messy new particles and invisble translucents matter. To be honest, if your theory was the currently accepted one I wouldn't of bothered to contemplate another lol.</font><br /><br />=D<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Have you sent it in for peer review yet?</font><br /><br />I have sent it to physicsforums.com "Independent Research" forum. So in a sense it is under peer review, but not under an actual physics journal.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Yes, well, Occam's Razor also inherently states that you design a theory to fit the facts you have. The theory of Dark Matter is the best fit. Something is exerting a profound gravitational influence, even if we don't actually see it.<br /><br />Besides, there are many things in the universe we can't directly image. The idea of something that is non-radiating and is too dispersed to directly image is not a real stretch. <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>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
fToRrEeEsSt - Please excuse the fact that I lack time to read the whole thread yet.<br /><br />However, your theory is similar to one of mine - except that I limit it to the effects on the universe, and separate from the cause of more rapid than expected revolution of stars in edge areas of galaxies which may be caused by a halo of dark matter around galaxies.<br /><br />I also consider that our universe is larger than the observable universe -as do many scientists, btw.<br /><br />My theory is that acceleration of expansion may be, in part, due to influence of FTL matter (ordinary matter expanding FTL due to stretching of our universe like a stretching fine gauze (model based on Isaiah 40:22)).<br /><br />This FTL matter can, by a domino effect in my theory, influence matter within our visibility horizon, aka light cone, such that it speeds up acceleration.<br /><br />I have detailed this theory in other threads.<br />
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<font color="yellow"><i>"I also consider that our universe is larger than the observable universe -as do many scientists, btw.</i></font><br /><br />I've highlighted the snippet above because in order to discuss the OP's initial point I think we have to agree on some terminology. When we are talking about the "universe" are we talking about the observable universe or the whole universe. I not a physicist nor even a competent amateur but I've always thought that the [whole] universe was thought to be infinite in extent and was so even at the moment of the big bang. That the big bang says all the matter and energy in the [observable] universe was contained in some small region of incredibly high density and then inflated and expanded doesn't mean that the [whole] universe was contained in that same dense region. There was more "stuff" next door to the "stuff" that presently resides in our [observable] universe. While the concept of infinite space expanding into an even more infinite space boggles my mind, apparently it doesn't bother physicists nor mathematicians as much. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> So going back to the OP's theory, and given the belief that any matter and energy co-inciding (at the moment of the big bang) right next to "the stuff" that's now in our [observable] universe was the same as what was in ours back then, I'd ask why should matter outside of our [observable] universe be expected to be any different, in either content or distribution, from the stuff we can see ? And if it isn't how does this extra-universal matter exert the influence proposed by the OP ? <br /><br />ps - I can't prove that "stuff" in the [whole] universe was, or now is, the same as what we can see but I can't find a reason to believe any differently. I acknowledge that this bit is some conjecture on my part. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
B

benjam

Guest
I apologize for skimming through the posts, and this may have been addressed already, but one thing I noticed in the original post was a theory of 'hyper-galaxies' that may be pulling on the rest of the universe.<br /><br />It is known that we can detect the 'edge' (edge/beginning/etc) of the universe as the background radiation, which is the heat/light from the big bang. It seems to me, that if we can see the 'edge', and we know where/when it came from, then there cannot be any other 'hyper-galaxies' further out than that.<br /><br />This may be an over-simplification of the facts, but that's the thought that occurred to me when I read the original post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY