Galaxy missing its dark matter?

[LogicalFallacy]

Interesting stuff! Wish BAA was around to comment  

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/102695163/scientists-baffled-by-mysterious-galaxy-that-seems-to-be-missing-its-dark-matter

[mymistake]

I've only had Astro 101 but to translate the article in to layman speak . . . 

 

Most galaxies have much more gravity than what the stars in them could generate.  We call the left over gravity the effect of "dark matter" because we don't see what is causing the gravity.  This new galaxy must be one where the gravity matches the number of stars it has.  So maybe if we study this new galaxy that will let us figure out that stuff we can't see in all the other galaxies.  As in asking how else is the new galaxy not like any of the others?

[pantheory]

On 3/28/2018 at 7:06 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Interesting stuff! Wish BAA was around to comment  

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/102695163/scientists-baffled-by-mysterious-galaxy-that-seems-to-be-missing-its-dark-matter

 

I am presently completing a paper generally stating that dark matter probably does not exist. In 2014, I and a colleague  wrote a paper generally asserting that dark energy probably does not exist. To get papers published one has to have observations and/ or data to support whatever claims that you are making; then you must find a well-read journal that will publish your research. There was about 2 years of research on the "no dark energy" paper and I've got over a year and a half in research and writing in this paper. IMO the paper explains the observed spiral galaxy rotation curves for all spiral galaxies examined without the need for dark matter.  And you're right, BAA would have certainly chimed in on this thread.

[pantheory]

On 3/28/2018 at 7:54 PM, mymistake said:

I've only had Astro 101 but to translate the article in to layman speak . . . 

 

Most galaxies have much more gravity than what the stars in them could generate.  We call the left over gravity the effect of "dark matter" because we don't see what is causing the gravity.  This new galaxy must be one where the gravity matches the number of stars it has.  So maybe if we study this new galaxy that will let us figure out that stuff we can't see in all the other galaxies.  As in asking how else is the new galaxy not like any of the others?

 

They measured the velocity of the observable globular clusters in the galaxy.  For closer galaxies we can measure redshifts of star groupings within the spiral disc which are less gravitationally bound to each other then they are in a globular cluster. The link galaxy is also very diffuse, although large, therefore the density of observable stars is probably much less. When looking at the same type of spiral galaxy, with the same apparent age, distance, and diffusion, I expect they will find many more examples like the one explained in the link.

[mymistake]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

They measured the velocity of the observable globular clusters in the galaxy.  For closer galaxies we can measure redshifts of star groupings within the spiral disc which are less gravitationally bound to each other as in a globular cluster. The galaxy is also very diffuse, although large, therefore the density of observable stars is probably much less. When looking at the same type of spiral galaxy, with the same apparent age, distance, and diffusion, I expect they will find many more examples.

 

Well best of luck to you proving that most other cosmologist are wrong.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 3/29/2018 at 6:19 AM, mymistake said:

 

Well best of luck to you proving that most other cosmologist are wrong.

 

 

 

You're certainly right. We expect heavy winds blowing against the forward progress of the conclusions of our paper.  Following its publication we will write a press release explaining our findings  in common language. I expect there will be some responses requesting our calculations based upon the equations shown within the paper. In the paper there must be convincing evidence and related arguments concerning our claims. The equations and calculated results concerning these galaxies must be repeatable by others, including the testing of many more spiral galaxies as to our conclusions. Next we must promote our paper seeking to find at least one or more observational astronomers that are interested in testing the conclusions of our paper by observation. if nothing of consequence is found contrary to our findings, we expect to write another paper explaining what we expect that the James Webb space telescope will find that will be contrary to what astronomers and most theorists will expect concerning the most distant galaxies in general. Afterwards, if we continue to believe strongly in our conclusions, we will try to promote them in the astrophysics community. If observational  evidence, like the link above, is strong enough we would expect that some practitioners will begin to question the validity of the dark matter hypothesis, or even the standard Big Bang model. The above findings in the subject link may be a start to such questioning.

[mymistake]

44 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

 If the evidence is strong enough we would expect that some will question the validity of the standard Big Bang model of cosmology and start looking for a better model.

 

And if the evidence is weak then what?

[pantheory]

33 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

And if the evidence is weak then what?

 

Well, so far the evidence, in my opinion, is very strong in favor of our proposal. But in time if the proposal shows weaknesses, those objections must be overcome by more data. If we conclude there is validity to such arguments against it, we would first look to improve our proposal, remaining consistent with my own cosmological model. I believe that after the James Webb goes up, hopefully in late 2019, cosmologists will either almost prove their present BB model, or will find strong evidence against it. Unfortunately I thought the same thing would happen after the Hubble was fully functional. Instead they kept changing the BB model as contrary observations presented themselves. After the James Webb has been functioning for maybe 3 years, I expect that some BB theorists will propose a much older universe, while some others will be looking for alternative models.

[mymistake]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Well, so far the evidence, in my opinion, is very strong in favor of our proposal. But in time if the proposal shows weaknesses, those objections must be overcome by more data. If we conclude there is validity to such arguments against it, we would first look to improve our proposal, remaining consistent with my own cosmological model. 

 

That is most unfortunate.  

[LogicalFallacy]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

After the James Webb has been functioning for maybe 3 years, I expect that some BB theorists will propose a much older universe, while some others will be looking for alternative models.

 

To propose an older model wouldn't you have to have some data indicating an older universe? I know you disagree but the way I understand it is that the age of the universe is calculated currently using two sets of observational data:

 

1) The current expansion rate of of the universe extrapolated back - it gives around 14 billion years

2) The oldest observed objects - that gives us 13 billion, though I understand some slightly older objects have recently been observed.

 

So the best calculation is 13.7 billion years.

 

For your hypothesis to be correct those two things would have to be wrong. Are you expecting the JW to present data that invalidates those two observations?

[pantheory]

On 3/29/2018 at 5:44 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

To propose an older model wouldn't you have to have some data indicating an older universe? I know you disagree but the way I understand it is that the age of the universe is calculated currently using two sets of observational data:

 

1) The current expansion rate of of the universe extrapolated back - it gives around 14 billion years

2) The oldest observed objects - that gives us 13 billion, though I understand some slightly older objects have recently been observed.

 

So the best calculation is 13.7 billion years.

 

For your hypothesis to be correct those two things would have to be wrong. Are you expecting the JW to present data that invalidates those two observations?

 

No, an older universe and galaxies at the farthest distances should look the same as our local universe if we are correct. There have been a great many observations claiming that the distant universe looks very different but that, based upon our study and paper, is because they are determining distances incorrectly using the Hubble formula. This is based upon a physically expanding universe rather than space expanding or other possibilities. Based upon observations by the James Webb, I believe they will eventually realize that distant galaxies are the same as we observe close by if the pictures appear the same.  On the other hand if they find only very young appearing bright blue galaxies many merging, with no red colored galaxies or stars, then the model that I am proposing, as well as all others predicting something different, would very likely be wrong.

 

https://www.gemini.edu/node/74

 

The 13.8 billion year universe age is calculated based upon the Hubble formula. This formula correctly calculates distances up to about 9 billion light years, with an error factor of about 10% according to our evaluation and conclusions. But beyond that distance it begins to calculate distances with greater errors, by  a error factor of about 3 at the farthest possible distances now observable.

 

your quote:

 

"For your hypothesis to be correct those two things would have to be wrong. Are you expecting the JW to present data that invalidates those two observations?"

 Yes, our proposal was that these distances are wrong because they were calculated by the Hubble formula. The idea is that if a picture taken by the James Webb at its farthest distance capability, looks almost the same as the now famous Hubble Ultra-Deep Field picture, then at least some will likely realize that something may be wrong with the present model.

 

https://www.space.com/34171-hubble-telescope-ultra-deep-field-photos.html

http://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

 

 

[mymistake]

7 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

No, an older universe and galaxies at the farthest distances should look the same as our local universe. There have been a great many observations claiming that the distant universe looks very different but that, based upon our study and paper, is because they are determining distances incorrectly using the Hubble formula according to our study and paper. The Hubble formula is based upon a physically expanding universe rather than space expanding or other possibilities. Once this and other factors are realized, I believe they will eventually realize that distance galaxies are the same as we observe close by.

 

The 13.8 billion year universe age is calculated based upon the Hubble formula. This formula does not incorrectly calculate distances up to about 9 billion light years, more than about 10% according to our evaluation. But beyond that distance it begins to calculate distances at great error, by  a factor of about 3 at the farthest possible distances now observable.

 

your quote:

 

"For your hypothesis to be correct those two things would have to be wrong. Are you expecting the JW to present data that invalidates those two observations?"

 Yes, our proposal was that these distances are wrong because they were calculated by the Hubble formula. The idea is that if a picture taken by the James Webb at its farthest distance capability, and if that picture looks almost like the now famous Hubble Ultra-Deep Field picture, than many will likely understand that something is wrong with the BB model.

 

https://www.space.com/34171-hubble-telescope-ultra-deep-field-photos.html

http://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

 

 

 

 

Most of the people here do not have any scientific background.  I wish you would clearly differentiate between your own hypothesis and the consensus of cosmologists.  You are going to confuse a lot of readers.  It would also be greatly appreciated if you would use the word "theory" in the strict scientific way and not apply it to a hypothesis that still needs a great deal of evidence before it starts to become accepted.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 3/30/2018 at 10:06 AM, mymistake said:

 

 

Most of the people here do not have any scientific background.  I wish you would clearly differentiate between your own hypothesis and the consensus of cosmologists.  You are going to confuse a lot of readers.  It would also be greatly appreciated if you would use the word "theory" in the strict scientific way and not apply it to a hypothesis that still needs a great deal of evidence before it starts to become accepted.

 

 

 

Of course I would gladly do this but it should be in its own thread and based upon a question by someone other than myself, a question like yours above. As far as the difference between the words "theory" and "hypothesis," such distinction must be based upon the accepted definitions of both words in a scientific context. Most theorists consider the word "theory" as being only those hypothesis that have been seriously considered by mainstream astronomers and theorists. By this definition ours is a generally unknown hypothesis.

[disillusioned]

pantheory,

 

I understand that you want to push your pet theory. But kindly keep in mind where you are, and to whom you are speaking.

 

This is not the site to push your personal, non-standard, views. If you want to stick to the evidence, then have at er, but your posts in this thread (and elsewhere) do not indicate that this is the case. You're a smart guy, and I respect that you want to challenge the establishment. But perhaps consider whether or not this is the correct forum to do so, and when you do, I would ask that you give special consideration to the fact that you clearly have a vested interest here. Also please also consider that many here are trying to recover from a view of the world that specifically asserts that science is suspect, and not to be trusted. As such, it seems to me that perhaps you would do better to push your particular views elsewhere.

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, disillusioned said:

pantheory,

 

I understand that you want to push your pet theory. But kindly keep in mind where you are, and to whom you are speaking.

 

This is not the site to push your personal, non-standard, views. If you want to stick to the evidence, then have at er, but your posts in this thread (and elsewhere) do not indicate that this is the case. You're a smart guy, and I respect that you want to challenge the establishment. But perhaps consider whether or not this is the correct forum to do so, and when you do, I would ask that you give special consideration to the fact that you clearly have a vested interest here. Also please also consider that many here are trying to recover from a view of the world that specifically asserts that science is suspect, and not to be trusted. As such, it seems to me that perhaps you would do better to push your particular views elsewhere.

 

The subject thread is a Galaxy Missing its Dark Matter.  I commented that I am presently writing a paper on this subject, to be published in a well-known Scientific Journal. I also wrote and published another paper in 2014 related to this subject. My area of expertise is Cosmology so I have expertise in this subject. All views other than the presently accepted views in science are non-standard. Historically science has made some of its greatest strides as a result of views that were non-standard at the time.

 

When asked further details concerning my own perspective and model, I said that I would gladly supply details but anything different from this subject would need to be in another thread started by someone other than myself.

 

I understand that nearly everyone here has traded the falsities of religion for the understandings of science, but I do not think it is wrong for such persons to realize that theories in science can change over time since science is a self-correcting process. The above observation could be an example.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

16 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

 

Most of the people here do not have any scientific background.  I wish you would clearly differentiate between your own hypothesis and the consensus of cosmologists.  You are going to confuse a lot of readers.  It would also be greatly appreciated if you would use the word "theory" in the strict scientific way and not apply it to a hypothesis that still needs a great deal of evidence before it starts to become accepted.

 

 

 

And this is where we really need BAA. He wasn't a 'scientist' but he knew cosmology inside out.

 

And yes lets remember:
 

Quote

 

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment."

 

"A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. "

 

 

Please remember to keep these distinctions:

[disillusioned]

On 2018-03-29 at 12:46 PM, pantheory said:

 

Well, so far the evidence, in my opinion, is very strong in favor of our proposal. But in time if the proposal shows weaknesses, those objections must be overcome by more data. If we conclude there is validity to such arguments against it, we would first look to improve our proposal, remaining consistent with my own cosmological model. I believe that after the James Webb goes up, hopefully in late 2019, cosmologists will either almost prove their present BB model, or will find strong evidence against it. Unfortunately I thought the same thing would happen after the Hubble was fully functional. Instead they kept changing the BB model as contrary observations presented themselves. After the James Webb has been functioning for maybe 3 years, I expect that some BB theorists will propose a much older universe, while some others will be looking for alternative models.

 

This is the part I have a problem with pantheory.

 

Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the model, then our thinking is flawed, so the model must be amended. Here you are criticising scientists who take this approach, and seemingly saying that you would not take this approach. This is troubling.

 

Of course theories in science change over time. There are probably quite a few things wrong with standard cosmology. If the evidence is in your favor, then in time your model will become accepted. But if the evidence is not in your favor, then your model should change, or be discarded. This is how science works. In the meantime, though, I don't think it's helpful to push it here, or to criticise others for correctly following the scientific method.

[mymistake]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 My area of expertise is Cosmology so I have expertise in this subject.  

 

 

 

I do not accept you as an authority on this topic because I know you are going against the vast majority of experts in cosmology.   It certainly is a young and growing field which has a lot to learn.  When the James Webb space telescope data is available if you wind up with a Nobel prize then I will congratulate you.  Until then it is only the Pan hypothesis.

[pantheory]

disillusioned,

 

Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the model, then our thinking is flawed, so the model must be amended.

 

Yes, this is how theories are amended. But theories can also fall out of favor over time followed by replacing the old theory with a new one. This is also done the same way that you described.

 

Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the theory in a major way, then our thinking is flawed, so the theory will be replaced. The last time a major theory was replaced (that I can recall) was about 100 years ago when General Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravity. General Relativity, the present theory of gravity, is also subject to being amended or replaced if future evidence does not match the theory. Although amendments to theory happen more frequently, major theories are also subject to being replaced for the same reason.

 

In the case of the subject link, dark matter is presently a hypothesis of the Big Bang model. The BB theory existed before this hypothesis was proposed, and would probably continue as the preferred model if both the "dark hypothesis" were replaced by other hypothesis. For the theory itself to be replaced, its major tenets would have to be contradicted by strong evidence. IMO If this would happen, it should not be a jaw-dropping surprise to anyone since this is the way science works.

 

[disillusioned]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

disillusioned,

 

Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the model, then our thinking is flawed, so the model must be amended.

 

Yes, this is how theories are amended. But theories can also fall out of favor over time followed by replacing the old theory with a new one. This is also done the same way that you described.

 

Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the theory in a major way, then our thinking is flawed, so the theory will be replaced. The last time a major theory was replaced (that I can recall) was about 100 years ago when General Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravity. General Relativity, the present theory of gravity, is also subject to being amended or replaced if future evidence does not match the theory. Although amendments to theory happen more frequently, major theories are also subject to being replaced for the same reason.

 

Agree, except that Newton's gravity, as you know, was not really "replaced" by GR. It was encompassed by it. GR doesn't contradict Newton's theory, it just offers a more comprehensive view.

 

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

In the case of the subject link, dark matter is presently a hypothesis of the Big Bang model. The BB theory existed before this hypothesis was proposed, and would probably continue as the preferred model if both the "dark hypothesis" were replaced by other hypothesis. For the theory itself to be replaced, its major tenets would have to be contradicted by strong evidence. IMO If this would happen, it should not be a jaw-dropping surprise to anyone since this is the way science works.

 

I agree with this.

[pantheory]

28 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Agree, except that Newton's gravity, as you know, was not really "replaced" by GR. It was encompassed by it. GR doesn't contradict Newton's theory, it just offers a more comprehensive view.

 

 

I agree with this.

 

True