 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Galactic Rotational Curves and The Dark Matter Myth:
Sam, You have asked me to research before I comment on ideas, and unlike others who can't take criticism I relish the challenge. You have stated that the evidence for Dark Matter is becoming increasingly evident, but I would like to put forward that the jury is still out. Galactic Rotation Curves and the Dark Matter Myth, a paper that out lines a contrary view can be found on the net at http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk where Thomas Smid (M.Sc.Physics,Ph.D Astronomy) brings forward objections to the premise of Dark Matter by showing that the foundation of the rotational curves argument could be brought about by a miss-reading of the evidence using the Doppler shift of interstellar hydrogen gas's emissions in the 21 cm line as an indicator of the motion of stars that would supposedly be riding along with the gas and dust. Doctor Smid points out that: "assuming the galactic magnetic field of 10 to the negative 6 Gauss, the Lorentz force on a thermal proton is about 10 orders of magnitude stronger that the gravitational force (assuming a galaxy of the mass and size of the Milky Way)" This force on the gas, through the dynamics of a plasma, would be what moves it in a rotational velocity uniformly around the central galactic vortex. He further asserts that "it is surprising that the dark matter theory has not been challenged on general scientific implausibility alone". Finally, Dr. Smid points out that the actual visible mass of the stelar medium of the galaxy body is indeterminate if we derive this mass from the luminosity of the galaxy using the mass-luminosity relationship: "A star with half the mass has only 1/10 of the luminosity, so with 10 times as many stars of half the mass, one would have the same overall brightness but 5 times the overall mass" This could show that the expectation of a dark-matter hypothesis unnecessary. These objections offer more than a shadow of a doubt, they move us away from even a preponderance of evidence for dark-matter. I'm interested in how you see it Professor, I don't mind the debate, I only object to emotional reactions to rational discussions. P.C.Stelzner Sam, The link I gave was not complete, the corect link is: httm://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/darkmatter.htm P.C.Stelzner > Sam, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > P.C.Stelzner ==================== It could be possible that what we see to be the Milky Way galaxy, from a different viewpoint, is no more nor less than the central black hole of a different galaxy on a different level of space and time. That the dark matter now indirectly observed to follow the general shape of a galactic disk (a seeming shaped shell enclosing our galactic disk centrally situated within), rather than a spherical shape, might just be a galaxy's very vast star field offset in relativity. Since there is no such thing as absolute zero-g, or even such a thing as absolute mass, position, or velocity, for that matter, is this galaxy -- or any galaxy -- absolute or relative? Is the black hole in the center of this galaxy itself absolute or relative if this entire galaxy we observe might itself be the central black hole of a different galaxy (again, its star field nothing but dark matter to us because of our relative relationship to it, acceleration situation or otherwise....possibly a vast combination of complex -- chaotically complicated -- conditions)? The same question applies to the entire universe itself we OBSERVE from Earth. Is it absolute? Or is it relative? (Remembering that all of the "all history universe" we observe out there, all the seeming terrific vastness of its space-TIMES (space-TIMES (plural!!!!): singularly specified points in timelines of innumerable histories....none of them, not a single one of them, the "as is universe"), is literally, flatly, strictly in the eye of the local beholder (the local observer). The observable universe, the entirety of observed universe, always in a quantum particle or wave quanta, so to speak, existing literally nowhere else but flatly at and in the eye -- the lens or other receptor -- of the [local] beholder.) GLB ==================== [snip] > I'm interested in how you see it Professor, I don't mind the debate, I > only object to emotional reactions to rational discussions. > > P.C.Stelzner Smid is an idiot whose website is full of crank screed about how physics is messed up at every level. Seriously - you will see he has an entry about essentially every part of modern physics and why he thinks it is wrong. You only listen to his inane spew about dark matter because it fits what you want to believe. His entire thesis is that astronomers can't tell the difference between interstellar gas and an actual star, which is stupid beyond all belief. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html People living in 2008 who think dark matter rests entirely on galactic rotation curves are so far out of the loop that there is no real point in discussing their misunderstandings until they familiarize themselves with what's current. Thanks Eric, After reviewing Smid's web-site, I tend to agree with your assessment. I'll spend my time studying the topics rather than commenting ( though I feel there might be validity to my idea of a diadein interplay at work in nature). P.C.Stelzner > Galactic Rotation Curves and the Dark Matter Myth, a paper that out > lines a contrary view can be found on the net at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > further asserts that "it is surprising that the dark matter theory has > not been challenged on general scientific implausibility alone". Naked protons do not emit 21-cm radiation.  SignatureJim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads > Sam, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > indicator of the motion of stars that would supposedly be riding along > with the gas and dust. Paul, you need to learn to scrutinize your sources. Citing known cranks is probably not good for raising question. Please remember that no prediction of relativity (special or general) had been contradicted by an observation. Dark matter maps reveal cosmic scaffolding http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0701594 I suggest: follow the references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#References http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/dark_matter.html http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070820.html http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070516.html http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030814.html http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html > Sam, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > indicator of the motion of stars that would supposedly be riding along > with the gas and dust. [snip] 1) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407 2) <http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=12&article=darkmatter> 3) http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=652 4) Google Images "bullet cluster" 2080 images 5) Pookie pookie. No valid theory may contradict reproducible empirical observation. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.