The rotation curve of the Andromeda Galaxy - actual (white line) and rotational velocities of outer stars that would be expected based on the estimated mass of visible matter in the galaxy. From this we conclude up to 90% of the mass must be in the form of dark matter.

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Could Dark Matter Not Matter?

3 Dec , 2011 by

[/caption]

You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of dark matter – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits.

The issue can be appreciated by considering the Keplerian motion of the planets in our Solar System. Mercury orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 48 kilometers a second – while Neptune orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 5 kilometers a second. In the Solar System, a planet’s proximity to the substantial mass of the Sun is a function of its orbital velocity. So, hypothetically, if the Sun’s mass was reduced somehow, Neptune’s existing orbital velocity would move it outwards from its current orbit – potentially flinging it off into interstellar space if the change was significant enough.

The physics of the Milky Way Galaxy is different from the Solar System, since its mass is distributed more evenly across the galactic disk, rather than 99% of its mass being concentrated centrally – the way it is in the Solar System.

Nonetheless, as this past Universe Today article explains, if we assume a similar relationship between the cumulative mass of the Milky Way and the orbital velocity of its outer stars, we must acknowledge that the visible objects within the Milky Way only have 10-20% of the mass that is required to contain the orbital velocity of stars in its outer disk. So we conclude that the rest of that galactic mass must be dark (invisible) matter.

This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to dark matter at all.

Left image: the rotation curve of spiral galaxy NGC 3198 showing the actual velocities of its outer stars (plotted points), then the velocities that would be expected given the mass of visible matter in its disk - overlaid by the assumed contribution of the mass of a dark matter halo. Right image: Carati's theoretical curve calculated from the effect of faraway matter and its remarkable fit to observed values from NGC 3198.

Conceptually the idea makes little sense. Positioning gravitationally significant mass outside of the orbit of stars might draw them out into wider orbits, but it’s difficult to see why this would add to their orbital velocity. Drawing an object into a wider orbit should result in it taking longer to orbit the galaxy since it will have more circumference to cover. What we generally see in spiral galaxies is that the outer stars orbit the galaxy within much the same time period as more inward stars.

But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit.

With skeptical goggles firmly in place, the following conclusions might be drawn from this finding:
• There are so many galaxies out there that it’s not hard to find four galaxies that fit the math;
• The math has been retro-fitted to match already observed data;
• The math just doesn’t work; or
• While the author’s interpretation of the data may be up for discussion, the math really does work.

The math draws on principles established in the Einstein field equations, which is problematic as the field equations are based on the cosmological principle, which assumes that the effect of faraway matter is negligible – or at least that it evens out at a large scale.

Perplexingly, Carati’s paper also notes two further examples where the math can also fit galaxies with declining rotational velocities in their outer stars. This is achieved by switching the sign of one of the formulae components (which can be + or -). Thus, on the one hand the effect of faraway matter is to induce a positive pressure that contains the rapid rotation of stars, preventing them from flying off – and on the other hand, it can induce a negative pressure to encourage an atypical decay in a galaxy’s rotation curve.

As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true – it probably isn’t true. All comments welcome.

Further reading:
Carati Gravitational effects of the faraway matter on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies.



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Otto Krog
Guest
December 3, 2011 9:06 PM

My take on dark matter is, that it is a miscalculating, stemming from our presumption that the speed of light is constant.

What if the speed of light varies through time and space?

That creates some interesting theory, at least I think so.

Antimatter is the mind and consciousness of all living entities.

You are your own universe.

Reality is where the minds (antimatter) meets the physical universe.

Interested? Then read my philosophical multiverse theory.

Google crestroyer theory and find it instantly

http://crestroyertheory.com/the-theory/

Nexus
Member
December 3, 2011 9:36 PM

No, I’m not interested in incoherent crackpot nonsense. Thanks all the same though.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
December 3, 2011 10:26 PM

Are you on drugs?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 3, 2011 11:11 PM

Conclusion… this guy has just had a head explosion, because antimatter destroys matter on contact. I’d advise no one shakes his hand – Boom! Just like that!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2011 5:07 AM

Your metaphysical points of view are out. We am only interested in Quantum Multiversal interpretations.

Jeffrey Boerst
Member
December 4, 2011 8:40 AM

So there could be a whole, entire little universe on the tip of my finger…? Wow! … Can I buy some pot from you?

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 4, 2011 5:55 PM

That the vacuum speed of light is constant is thoroughly tested.

Antimatter destroys matter, so can’t make up minds. Minds are produced in most people by their brains. If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to it.

“You are your own universe.”

Dogs are your own universe, cats are your own universe, … I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ivan3man_At_Large
Member
Ivan3man_At_Large
December 3, 2011 10:49 PM
But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit. A Mathematician, a Biologist, and a Physicist are sitting in a street cafe watching people going in and coming out of the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three persons coming out of the house. The Physicist concludes: “The measurement wasn’t accurate.” The Biologist concludes: “They must have reproduced.” The Mathematician concludes: “Now, if exactly 1… Read more »
postman1
Member
postman1
December 4, 2011 1:45 AM

LOL! I had to copy that one down. Thanks!

cosmic avenger
Member
cosmic avenger
December 4, 2011 4:24 AM

A Mathematician, a Physicist and a Statistician arrive for a job interview. The mathematician is interviewed first. After having a good interview the final question is, “what is two plus two?” Responding, “four” says thanks and leaves. The physicist goes through the same interview with the same final question. Responding, “a little less than 4.0001 and more than 3.9999,” says thanks and leaves. The statistician finishes the interview with the same last question. After looking over one shoulder, then the other, leans forward and asks, “what do you want it to be?”

mntmn3
Member
mntmn3
December 3, 2011 11:49 PM

Who is this Carati? He isn’t identified in the article. Does he have a first name? What is his background? Where does he work? Male or female?

Ivan3man_At_Large
Member
Ivan3man_At_Large
December 4, 2011 2:07 AM

I think that this may be the dude in question.

Tester
Guest
December 4, 2011 2:13 AM

You can find that in the linked PDF: Andrea Carati (male name in Italy) from the University of Milan.

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
December 4, 2011 12:27 AM

The Bullet cluster data pretty much supports dark matter, and I don’t see how this type of model can reproduce that. This seems to be the latest in the MOND development.

LC

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2011 11:53 AM

However, the Bullet cluster does not necessarily only support the dark matter hypothesis, it will support other theories too, along with all the other evidence for dark matter. I agree that this model would likely fail to describe every scenario, but it is encouraging to have others thinking outside the dark matter box.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 4, 2011 5:42 PM

What lcrowell says, perhaps vaguely, is that cluster data supports dark matter while others can’t “reproduce that.” And that is true, see my other comments: other models fail to predict _all_ cluster data in their totality.

It is not encouraging to me that people flog a now dead horse. (Again, see my other comments on that.) It is unhealthy business and unhealthy science.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2011 6:54 PM
I knew you would pipe up here. Dark matter has been conceived as a source of gravity – but extra physical substance in some people’s minds is not necessary to explain the phenomena we observe. And, I’m sorry, it IS encouraging for people to look at ALL possibilities. Take 90% mass of a galaxy, spread evenly through the space it occupies as gas, now take the other 10% mass compressed into stars – do you just assume this would have the same gravitational effect as 1/9 of the gas? Anyway, whatever your thoughts are on that, more importantly, even if DM does exist, you seem to have completely closed your mind to MOND (or laws which actually don’t… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 5, 2011 11:30 AM
I wanted to correct your misrepresentation of what lcrowell and others, quite correctly, says on this, that MOND type theories can’t reproduce this without problems. This has been known for a fairly long time. If you think otherwise you can present references on how they get around relativistic problems. No one ‘completely closes’ their mind on possible hypotheses. (On impossible, certainly.) MOND had its chance, but eventually it failed. Similarly with DM, but it didn’t fail and it has been successful in predicting more and more structure. I am serious about this: After the Eris simulation there is simply no gap left for alternates that can’t predict _as much or more_ as Duncan Ivry says. MOND isn’t among… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 5, 2011 1:18 PM

You don’t need to correct any ‘misrepresentation’. And don’t try to veil yourself sounding like you’re being pitiful! ‘Oh, you poor, poor caveman who can’t understand the truth’. For future reference I’d rather not communicate with people who make snide remarks like that – makes me think the same of you. Enjoy.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 6:18 AM

My point exactly. It may be a good model for now, but that is no indication at all that it will remain so. To imply that “the science is settled” is as silly in this case as it is in other areas.

b_i_d
Guest
December 5, 2011 9:44 PM

> To entertain this is now an unhealthy business and unhealthy science.

So what you’re saying is: We have one theory that can’t be verified yet, but seem to explain things pretty good. That means that every scientist on the world should only work on that one and that one alone. No one should think about or experiment with ANY other theory concerning the same subject at all.

I have to say that your and my idea of the scientific process somewhat diverge…

John Skoyles
Guest
John Skoyles
December 4, 2011 12:30 AM

Has anyone noticed the parallels that exist between today’s cosmology and that of geology in the early and mid parts of the twentieth century?

Go back and geologists then had a data problem that should have led for a hunt for hidden “dark energy” forces within the Earth. But instead geologists hounded Alfred Wegener and ignored all the evidence he collected that some slow powerful force was moving and breaking the continents apart. Today’s cosmologists are not making that mistake with today’s inexplicable data.

But will the eventual understanding of today’s “dark matter” yield a phenomena so radically changing of our fundamental concept of the universe as that of the Earth created by plate tectonics?

josh lisse
Guest
josh lisse
December 4, 2011 7:54 AM

Such as dark matter is gravity “leaking” from another universe?

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 4, 2011 5:38 PM
Using Baez crackpot index “for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics”, I afford this thread: 1. A -5 point starting credit. 35. 40 points for comparing yourself [the topic] to Galileo [Wegener], suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is [not] hard at work on your case, and so on. Sums to 35 points. =D Really, Wegener’s then hypothesis is still unexplained from first principles: the necessary heat fluxes from primordial heat vs radioactivity hasn’t been established. Today there is hope that neutrino experiments will eventually do that: “… The current total heat flux from the Earth to space is 44.2±1.0?TW, but the relative contributions from residual primordial heat and radiogenic decay remain uncertain. … Taken together, our observations indicate… Read more »
damian
Member
December 4, 2011 12:44 AM

Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic also has a new theory regarding dark matter. “Quantum vacuum and dark matter.”

Quote: “…..the distribution of vacuum polarization will depend on the distribution of matter, so the apparent extra acceleration towards the center of mass will vary from one object to another, and as a function of position within the object,”

Perhaps “Carati’s” equations and Hajdukovic’s hypothesis have some correlations?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-quantum-vacuum-dark.html

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 4, 2011 5:16 PM

Ooh, I take that!

Yes, the correlation is that it is work on a now dead subject. =D

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2011 7:04 PM

Mr. Torbjörn are you a DM researcher?!

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 5, 2011 11:35 AM

No, but by now even a layman can conclude that gap theories like MOND are dead, because the gap is closed. See my initial comment.

A contender to DM would need to be at least as predictive. That is a tall order, and all the work on MOND type theories has shown that it is much narrower.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 6:38 AM

Actually, no. Or rather, yes, a “contender”, or replacement for, DM would likely have to be as predictive. But a disproof of DM would take only a single counterexample. That is what happens to the vast majority of theories, after all.

damian
Member
December 5, 2011 8:21 AM

Well I’m glad that YOU think the all the mysteries of the universe are now solved. I guess everyone should now just forget doing any more research because you say so.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
December 5, 2011 3:34 PM

I guess, this is not what Torbjörn said.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 6:39 AM

It is pretty close to what he said.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 6:52 AM

In fact the stories and the timing are similar enough that at first I thought this was about Hajdukovic (I hadn’t remembered his name).

But I think the timing and the apparent validation of the math also indicates that DM is not the end-all explanation that some people seem to think it is.

Ca W
Guest
Ca W
December 4, 2011 2:03 AM

Has Carati tested his proposed mechanism against galaxy cluster data? As far as I’m aware, most attempts to explain dark matter’s effects on individual galaxies without invoking dark matter have been unable to explain the observed effects of dark matter on the scale of galactic clusters.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 4, 2011 5:15 PM

Good question!

As far as I can see Carati haven’t even tested his mechanism against galaxy data, see my comment above. Carati tested against what the ad hoc hypotheses was designed to predict, but unfortunately for Carati there were other predictions as well.

Lucian Coulson
Guest
Lucian Coulson
December 4, 2011 12:40 PM

Seen from the vantage point of my dark mattress; wearing only my most septic spectacles, I behold my Scale Expanding Cosmetological strap on and fly in the face of the bestial dogma propounded by a veritable orgy of “big bangers”. I shall be compelled to hose you. Conjecture and refutation; The Tentative Solution.

Duncan Ivry
Guest
Duncan Ivry
December 4, 2011 2:26 PM
There is not only the problem how stars move in galaxies. The astrophysicist Ethan Siegel some time ago stated it on his science blog “Starts With A Bang” perfectly well, because of which I quote his statements here (a little bit paraphrasing): “There are plenty of other experiments and observations that confirm Einstein’s General Relativity as the correct theory of gravity. If we want for cosmology to work, too, we need to add dark matter to the theory. This one addition — dark matter — successfully allows us to explain a whole host of observations, including” (1) “the large-scale structure in the Universe,” (2) “the cosmic microwave background,” (3) “the elemental abundances of hydrogen, helium, lithium and deuterium,”… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 4, 2011 4:58 PM
The alternatives to dark matter (DM) died when the Eris simulation showed that dark matter is necessary and sufficient to model galaxies. Then the gap to wedge in “competitors” disappeared. Now DM predicts all relevant scales of structure formation, from cosmological (the Bolshoi simulation) over clusters to galaxies. And as Duncan Ivry notes, a real competitor would have to predict so much more that standard cosmology with DM is on top of. If we instead look at these theories as such, they all stumble and fall on the “individual cluster effect”. That is, when they are used for cluster like the Bullet cluster collision they can explain one individual by adjusting the free parameters of the model. But… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 6:14 AM

Sorry, but that doesn’t follow at all. “Necessary and sufficient” by itself is not strong evidence. It only means that it is a viable model for now. It hardly forms any barrier to something better coming along.

“The less we write about it, the faster the process converges onto healthy science.”

Wow. Man. Are you serious? Are you by any chance a friend of Ned Ludd?

Squelching new ideas (unless you can actually show that they are invalid) is quite the OPPOSITE of what science is about. Sorry if all those upstarts get on your nerves. I doubt your tenure is in much danger.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 12:51 PM

Too right, it is quite a bizarre way to go about science.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 4, 2011 5:42 PM

Here’s one for you… the solar systems on the similar plane of orbit act act with their gravitation pulling the rest of the galaxies ‘behind’ to ease rotation and in the simliar function decreasing the warp of space / time ‘friction’ for the proceeeding mass to ease orbit. Similar to how there’s decrease of pressure behind a transport truck lessening resistance directly behind it for vehicles and lowering the energy requred to travel We might be able to see this in solar systems were there planets on the opposite side of the same orbital path….

Fits better than the dark matter / energy / ether / unicorns.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
December 4, 2011 7:44 PM

1) Spacetime is not air.

2) The energy the cars behind the truck don’t need is needed by the truck to push away all that air.

So: No.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 12:33 AM

see addendum..

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 1:02 AM

or if you had a basketball or bowling ball spinning really quickly and then dropped into some fairly well packed dirt… it wouldn’t just sit snug but spin some room making the space around it larger at least until the dirt settled back and it slowed down leaving room for the ball to shift around in the ‘valley’… etc…

Olaf
Member
Olaf
December 5, 2011 12:50 PM

Gravitational forces does not work like that.
A galaxy is not a dense packed solid object.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 3:39 PM

I thought the pro dark matter argument was that galaxies were ‘full of dark matter’ … filling up the spaces where matter didn’t exist? So which is it? is the cup full of dark matter / ether, or is it empty? Or is it we look at these huge collections of mass and energy through such poor instruments over too limited a timeframe, and great distances what we observe would be so distorted, the Fata Morgana would pervade any such analysis.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
December 5, 2011 3:45 PM

— I thought the pro dark matter argument was that galaxies were ‘full of dark matter’ … filling up the spaces where matter didn’t exist? —
It still does not form a solid as your example.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 5:43 PM

I propose we do some experiments. Set off nuclear and or fusion based explosions half way between here and the moon and measure any changes in expected data going to from the Lunar Ranging Retro Reflectors as light or other high speed particles pass through adn return back to earth. This will tell us more about the effects of various properties at distances where we might even begin to consider the variances that can occur to observations at cosmic distances.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 12:44 AM

the ‘truck’ is the central collective mass of the galaxy (which ‘varies’ location) the cars are the arms of solar systems ‘passing around the center’ which creates easier path to move because of its ‘clearing out’ the effect of spacetime which works to hold what would be larger masses in place. maybe a closer look at reasonable set of colliding galaxies would show some demonstrable function of such lack or proof the effect, as well confirm the above articles points.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
December 5, 2011 12:48 PM

— which creates easier path to move because of its ‘clearing out’ the effect of spacetime which works to hold what would be larger masses in place. —

I bet that you have no clue what “clearing out the effect of spacetime” even means.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 3:15 PM

i bet you can’t put forward an alternative theory that doesn’t involve unicorns.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
December 5, 2011 3:44 PM

You still have not explained what “clearing out the effect of spacetime” even means.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 4:52 PM

Ok i’m suppositioning that gravity and all other forces on particles exhibit differing properties while occupying a relatively ‘close’ around area of space when they approach certain collectives of mass. Think pulsar ‘event horizons’ or the surface of the sun how some ‘eddy’s’ spin faster than other areas, but around the area of galaxies and only on effect of mass / momentium in its relative location of over a particular period. Objects in the wake of speedily rotating galactic mass, will be able exhibit difffering properties than expected for they are in ‘fast lanes’ of fabric of space and time around these trillions of light years in volume ‘masses’. Especially when considering were talking speeds 500 km/sec.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
December 5, 2011 5:30 PM

– I am suppositioning that gravity and all other forces on particles exhibit differing properties while occupying relatively ‘close’ to an area of space when they approach certain collectives of mass. —

And how much mass per square km are we talking here? What would the average distance be between 2 particles be?

You call 500 km/s relativistic? It is fast but not that fast.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 5, 2011 11:57 PM

from my amateur armchair we’d need to talk masses / energy in the order of magnitude of >1 ×10 ^42 kg near the 30% radius of mass and as for density.. the density of collective solar systems would be when they approach a half to a light year distant from one another… (unless there are Vogons, then the distance might be longer. wink

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 6, 2011 12:22 AM

http://messier.seds.org/xtra/ngc/n2976.html is possibly the definition of the smallest conditions for the effect to occur. though… its a big ass sky.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 8:20 AM

“Relativistic” effects are not always associated with high velocities. They can be associated with other edge-cases, like extremely high mass.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 7:14 AM

I think I see what you’re getting at, but I am not sure I agree. It has long been known that there is a certain amount of “drag” associated with large moving masses (see Tipler: “Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation”) but I do not see that these masses are large enough to cause a distortion effect: the distances between them in galactic arms are too great.

Not to mention that the relativistic effects are in relation to each other; not necessarily to an outside observer. That would have to be taken into account.

Edward Stanley
Guest
Edward Stanley
December 6, 2011 1:55 AM
weeasle
Member
weeasle
December 5, 2011 4:06 AM

Nice post smile)
I managed to finally located the proof and the first observation of actual dark matter.. It can be found here:

Enjoy!

interI0per
Member
interI0per
December 4, 2011 6:40 PM

wow, whoda thunk galactic rotation curves would incite so many comments?
perhaps because it so clearly demonstrates the conundrum of dark matter?

so, matter on a galactic scale must have an ‘aggregate effect’ on it’s containing volume of space.
we probably are vastly underestimating the amount of non luminous matter AND the instantaneous effect of massive bodies on one another.

how much matter has to be added to the sum to make the equations fit the observed?

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 5, 2011 11:50 AM

What “conundrum” would that be?

There isn’t any added matter to a sum, _it is not a place holder_ as some erroneously and confusingly claim. Cold dark matter is a particulate source of gravity which is cold (so relatively heavy) and can be observed by various means. Say, gravitational lenses.

It happens to predict structure formation on all scales when the observed amount is included in the detailed models.

The observed amount is on the order of ~ 4 times the matter we already knew about. This was unanticipated (yay!) but not a “conundrum”.

weeasle
Member
weeasle
December 5, 2011 4:13 AM
Quoting article.. You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. … With skeptical goggles firmly in place, the following conclusions might be drawn from this finding: … • The math has been retro-fitted to match already observed data; • The math just doesn’t work; or • While the author’s interpretation of the data may be up for discussion, the math really does work. //end quote Honestly Steve.. Having a little chuckle.. All of the above can be said of the current Dark Matter hypothesis (except the math not working – but no correlation yet in nature). We have a large number of scientists on this planet accepting the existence… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
December 5, 2011 11:56 AM

There isn’t any added matter to a sum, there isn’t any numbers in a computer formula, _it is not a place holder_ as some erroneously and confusingly claim. Cold dark matter is a particulate source of gravity which is cold (so relatively heavy) and can be observed by various means. Say, gravitational lenses.

It happens to predict structure formation on all scales when the observed amount is included in the detailed models.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 6:29 AM

Wow again. Please don’t misunderstand: I am not claiming that a theory of Dark Matter is necessarily incorrect.

But characterizing gravitational lensing as “direct observation”??? You are going to have to explain that to me!

We ALREADY knew that a gravity-like effect is occurring. Seeing further evidence of that same gravity-like effect is not “direct observation” of a mass that may or may not be causing it, any more than the ORIGINAL observation of a gravity-like effect constitutes “direct observation”.

I am really starting to question your interpretations.

Thomas Moore
Guest
Thomas Moore
December 5, 2011 10:28 PM

Don’t even want to interject in the main discussion at hand, but felt compelled to point out that math doesn’t much work yet on anything much passed NP complexity except in very general terms. I’d daresay math doesn’t work on most problems.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 11:47 AM

There is some really interesting stuff there!! Thanks for the links smile

weeasle
Member
weeasle
December 6, 2011 11:58 PM
Hi Jlinley, A pleasure. Also refreshing to see other critical thinkers rounding the wagons. We need more physicists and people with critical thinking to question the mainstream tennant of DM being advanced as in my opinion it has become a weed in the garden which is displacing other theories when it has no right to (in terms of not having been proven yet definitively but being parroted by mainstream press as though it were).. Also I recommend viewing the wikipedia page on Dynamic equilibrium and Radiative equilibrium If these actual physically proven physics theorems were applied to a white hole singularity being torn apart by a (non) zero-point vacuum, then everything flows from there (pun intended). It seems… Read more »
weeasle
Member
weeasle
December 7, 2011 12:06 AM
Hi Jlinley, A pleasure. Also refreshing to see other critical thinkers rounding the wagons. We need more physicists and people with critical thinking to question the mainstream tennant of DM being advanced as in my opinion it has become a weed in the garden which is displacing other theories when it has no right to (in terms of not having been proven yet definitively but being parroted by mainstream press as though it were).. Also I recommend viewing the wikipedia page on Dynamic equilibrium and Radiative equilibrium If these actual physically proven physics theorems were applied to a white hole singularity being torn apart by a (non) zero-point vacuum, then everything flows from there (pun intended). It seems… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 8, 2011 4:13 PM
Hi Wezley, Thank you this is totally cool! I wasn’t aware of all these thought experiments into atemporality – I’m so glad you’ve introduced me to them as I thought I may have been going mad to think that time isn’t really a necessary quality of the universe this really explains the constancy of the speed of light along with all Einstein’s postulates of SR and GR. It is simply how time, the process of motion, is measured and conceived by humans (with memory/clocks/sundials etc), or any ‘product’ WITHIN the system in question (the universe) in different regions of space, and the way clockwork as an actual mechanism progresses at a different …’rate’?! (there are no words for… Read more »
weeasle
Member
weeasle
December 7, 2011 12:42 AM
The wikipedia page on Dynamic Equilibrium was edited recently and has removed all link to Einstein et al… Grrrrr!!! So here is where the correct trail can be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynamic.html (from this papers references) References: [1] Einstein A., Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920), page 155 http://www.bartleby.com/173/ [2] Yourgrau P. (2006) A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel And Einstein [3] Sorli A., Sorli K. (2005) From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Vol. 14, Num. 1. [4] Fiscaletti D., Sorli A. (2005). Toward an a-temporal interpretation of quantum potential. Frontier Perspectives, Vol. 14, Num. 2. [5] Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005). A-Temporal Gravitation And Hypothetical Gravitational waves, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics,… Read more »
Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
December 5, 2011 4:08 PM
There appears to be the usual confusion about gravity here. So I thought it was time to give my brief lecture on gravity and dark matter. The role of dark matter in galactic motion is not hard to see, and it only takes Newtonian mechanics to understand things. We start with Newton’s second law of motion, force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma), with the force being Newton’s law of gravity for the force between two masses M and m F = GMm/r^2. We consider the large mass as a distribution of matter in a spherical region with volume V = (4?/3)r^3 and where the mass has a density ? so that M = ?V. So we… Read more »
Konrad Schellenberg
Guest
Konrad Schellenberg
December 5, 2011 7:27 PM

Is it possible our models of gravity are incorrect? They are based on observation and assumptions. What if all matter does exhibit the same gravitational force? We have assumed certain things about the the cores of stars and our planets that may be incorrect.
Look at our assumption that nothing is faster than light. Why did we assume that nothing is faster than light? Because we had not observed anything faster.

magnus.nyborg
Guest
magnus.nyborg
December 6, 2011 3:18 PM
It has not been assumed that nothing can move faster than light. It all started with the observation that light seems to always move in the same speed (in a vacuum). this made absolutely no sense whatsoever until Albert Einstein showed that this can easily be explained by a transformation of 4 units (3d-velocity and time) called the Lorentz-transform. The odd thing about that transform is that it disallows travelling faster than the speed of light. But it is the only physicly explainable way to explain the constancy of the speed of light. It also gives a huger number of other observable and confirmable effects. In order to change this, all you need to do is to demonstrate… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 5, 2011 8:11 PM

Actually, Occam’s (or “Ockham’s”) Razor would seem to favor Carati’s interpretation. After all, postulating that 80% of the Universe is composed of some kind of mysterious mass that does not otherwise interact with our reality is what is the more outrageous claim. I daresay you favor that interpretation merely because it is more familiar. Hardly a good way to measure scientific veracity.

What was unmentioned here is that Carati’s calculations would tend to eliminate any need for “dark energy”, too. Which, if anything, makes his idea that much more plausible.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
December 5, 2011 8:30 PM

But only if that explanation can explain more than DM. And as we are able to read above and elsewhere, it cannot. Therefore, Occam’s razor doesn’t count.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 5:54 AM
Actually, that’s not so. But we have conflation of several separate issues here. First, William of Ockham’s rule of thumb dealt with explanations for the same phenomenon, and it presumes they are roughly equally plausible explanations, except for the “multiplication of entities”. It does not presume that one explains “more” than the other at all. But if we start from a presumption that the explanations are roughly equally “reasonable”, then Carati’s postulate is the clear winner, from the Razor’s perspective. But as for that latter point, I am not so sure I agree. Evidence for dark matter and dark energy both has remained tenuous at best. Despite some clues that the concepts might be shown to be valid… Read more »
DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
December 6, 2011 10:27 AM

I agree with your last paragraph.
On the other hand, this reminds me of the situation of the neutrino. It was theoretically invented around 1932 by Dirac (IIRC) to “save” energy conservation which seemed to be violated by the beta decay. It was eventually found in the late 1950.
The same holds (at the moment) for dark matter. We have some hints (very good hints from my POV), but a direct measurement is difficult, because it seems to be only interacting gravitationally. I can imagine such particles (which doesn’t mean that they have to be real, of course). It will be very difficult to detect them, naturally, but maybe we will succeed — or not.

Zephir Zephir
Guest
Zephir Zephir
December 5, 2011 10:27 PM
The article finding is real and it actually supports the four hundreds years old de Duillier-LeSage theory, which is AWT compliant, BTW. Believe it or not, this theory is real, working well and it’s actually the only physical theory, which can explain the inverse square law on which Newton’s law and general relativity are based (the general relativity just borrowed the Newtons law into Einstein’s equation as it is, which means, even GR is actually Newton law dependent, not vice-versa as the mainstream propaganda is claiming…). Anyway, in the Duillier-LeSage model the gravity is the effect of tachyon shielding with observable matter. These tachyons are essentially gravitational waves (Mr. de Duillier called them ultramundanne particles, which brings the… Read more »
Paul Goldstein
Guest
December 6, 2011 5:49 PM

The Earth is actually flat too.

Paul Goldstein
Guest
December 5, 2011 11:45 PM
Well I think its healthy discussion regardless of whether Carati is right. Dark Matter is a theory, one which is very useful for explaining the observations of the motion of stars, but is missing one very important thing: We don’t know what the &#&*$(#$& Dark Matter is!!!! “Although dark matter is the most popular theory to explain the various astronomical observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters, there has been no direct observational evidence of dark matter” – Wikipedia. So that doesn’t mean Dark Matter theory is wrong at all. But one would hope, that if there is this massive amount of dark matter all around every galaxy, then we ought to be able to figure out what it… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 5, 2011 11:52 PM

@Steve You should threaten to excommunicate him – I hear that has a positive effect on keeping scientists in line with the status quo.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 1:50 PM

Ha!! Excellent.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2011 3:00 AM
DM is a theory based on the the failure to match our theories with observation. It was not discovered like normal scientific theories. what happened was that our theories said: x+y=z but observations show x+y=zA. therefore we are ‘missing’ a thing called A. only time will tell if A is DM or A is a discrepancy in our calculations, or if we are missing another function, or even possibly have yet to discover a force or 2. until then, DM is hardly a theory but rather a convenient piece that makes our puzzle fit together nicely. we are hardly close to understanding the universe so remain open to new theories. especially if the math in it is sound.… Read more »
Paul Goldstein
Guest
December 6, 2011 5:36 PM
DM is a much stronger theory than you give it credit for here. It is most definitely a theory and like many theories was created to explain a set of observations. It is well accepted for good reasons. I too was somewhat skeptical of DM and felt much like you do, but after reading about some of the experiments that confirm it, I’m much more on board as is the majority of the scientific community. The Gravitational Lensing experiments/observations in particular are quite compelling. So sure alternate theories are always welcome (if they are well thought out), however, they would have to be able to explain all the observations (like gravitational lensing). Of course I would love to… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 7, 2011 10:15 AM

I do not discount DM at all. My reply was more in support for this article and it’s findings.

The LHC is about to announce they may have found a 125 GeV Higgs which will mean the Standard Model will need to be fixed…maybe even implying supersymmetry.

The universe is filled with many more mysteries. DM has made physicists lazy and closed minded. We have yet to discover all the tools necessary for us to even begin claiming something undetectable (like DM) as the truth.

wpDiscuz