Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Mario E. de Souza: on 10/8/12 at 1:14am UTC, wrote Dear Jim, You gave an excellent account of the whole problem with the dark...

Anonymous: on 10/7/12 at 9:54am UTC, wrote Dear Mario and Ben, Once again I'd like to add my two cents to Ben's...

Mario E. de Souza: on 10/5/12 at 17:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, I think that it is a possible way. But probably the cause is...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/5/12 at 16:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Mario, In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the...

Mario E. de Souza: on 10/5/12 at 3:35am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey Fedosin, Thank you very much for your explanation on the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:28am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Mario E. de Souza: on 10/2/12 at 14:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben Dribus, It has been shown by Geha et al. ApJ 711, 361 (2010) that...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/2/12 at 4:07am UTC, wrote Dear Mario, First, I really enjoyed your essay. Being from the math side,...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "(continued) 2. Physics has assumed that bottom-up causation IS top-down..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "1. Physics can’t tell you why the world ever moves, i.e. physics assumes..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...

Dr Narayan Bhadra: "All the Honourable Scientists are cordially requested to feedback that we..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "The mass of the lion entity is not divided between different areas of high..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Jim Snowdon: "Since evolving on our rapidly rotating planet, we have used it`s rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "a general universal clock of evolution irreversible correlated for me with..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 20, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A New Model Without Dark Matter for the Rotation of Spiral Galaxies: The Connections Among Shape, Kinematics and Evolution by Mario Everaldo de Souza [refresh]

Author Mario Everaldo de Souza wrote on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is proposed that the arms of spiral galaxies are formed by the continuous outflow of matter from their centers, and is shown that the ratio between the radial and tangential velocities of the outflow is the parameter responsible for the logarithmic spiral structure of spiral galaxies. The fitting of some spiral galaxies to the model allows the calculation of the radial velocities of matter in these galaxies and such values completely agree with the observational data. An approximate universal equation is proposed for the description of the arms of spiral galaxies with or without bars. Some important consequences are discussed with respect to galactic evolution, properties of spiral galaxies and cosmology, and is shown that dark matter does not exist at all in spiral galaxies.

Author Bio

Brazilian Physicist, with BSc and MSc degrees from Universidade Federal de Pernambuco e PhD from University of Illinois at Chicago.

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Mario,

Not being well versed in cosmology, I can't comment intelligently on the correctness of the details set forth in your essay. That said, your model certainly looks interesting. Not made sufficiently clear to me, however, is how your essay addresses the theme of this competition: which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong? Has invoking the presence of dark matter to explain galactic formation achieved the status of a basic physical assumption? I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I think it would have been helpful if you had addressed this issue more explicitly. Thanks.

Good luck in the competition!

jcns

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear JCN Smith,

Unfortunately, dark matter has gained the status of a basic assumption because of its implication in some cosmological models. But as I show in the essay this assumption is wrong and the explanation for the spiral structure is just the formation of the spiral arms by means of a continuous outflow of matter from the center of the spiral galaxy.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Mario,

A spiral galaxy formation is somewhat more complicated than a solar system formation, an obvious distinction being the distances involved within a time period. Our solar system planetary orbits would be a spiral if Newtonian gravity didn't accommodate "instantaneous action at a distance," which is simply due to the relatively short distances involved.

The large distances involved in a spiral galaxy displays the finite value of the "influence of gravity" velocity, and you should be able to calculate the approximate value of the velocity based upon the spiral form of a galaxy. The shape of the galaxy core will effect the shape of the spiral, as the barred core appears less like a point source to matter in the galaxy arms.

A number of assumptions have to be disposed of to arrive at a simpler explanation for spiral galaxy forms, dark matter being one of the assumptions. You can also think of a solar system formation being a fractal of a galaxy formation, a matter of scale. Also, keep in mind that it is assumed that the velocity of the influence of gravity is constant everywhere.

Assumptions are an attempt to form the shape of a puzzle piece to fit a piece to a large puzzle even though we don't know the final puzzle form. When future assumptions are based upon earlier assumptions, it is not difficult to start forming a Picasso-like puzzle result.

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Hi Frank Makinson,

As I show in the essay, due to conservation of angular momentum, energy and mass, a certain amount of mass in the bulge, driven by radial forces (not well understood yet) leaves the bulge of the galaxy and takes a logarithmic spiral path which is formed because the ratio between the radial and tangential velocities of the mass remains constant as the mass goes away from the bulge. Of course, we can improve the model and include gravitational effects of the arms, but, as it is demonstrated in the essay, the first approximation yields already very good results proven by the fittting of several spiral galaxies. The essay did not present more fittings because the radial velocities of spiral galaxies is a quantity which was not used to be measured and is known only for some galaxies.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Mario E. de Souza,

I just happily found your essay! Briefly, I'm not a physicist, so comprehending your essay will be rather difficult, but I'm also very interested in addressing the misconception of (at least) galactic dark matter. While I approach the issue as an information systems analyst (please bear with me), I urge you to read my essay, clumsily titled Inappropriate...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Dear James T. Dwyer,

I thank you very much for your comments. The summary of my work is: the spiral structure is formed by the combination of rotation and continuous shedding of matter radially outwards from the center of the galaxy in a plane perpendicular to the angular momentum of the bulge.

Upon leaving the bulge a certain amount of mass of gas conserves its angular momentum and its kinetic energy, and because of these conservation laws, the mass is forced to follow a spiral path. Actually, considering the influence of the gravitational potential the curve described by the mass is a more complex curve. The spiral is obtained when the radial velocity at the bulge frontier is much larger than the escape velocity from the bulge. Unfortunately, I could not explain all this in the essay which has a limited scope.

With these conditions one obtains Danvar equation that had not yet been derived from Newtonian Mechanics. And moreover, one sees that the exponent of the equation is the ratio between the radial and tangential velocities of the mass of gas,establishing thus, a direct relation between shape and dynamics.

Only a couple of years ago researchers began measuring the radial velocities of the outflows in spiral galaxies.

Of course, the essay does not have the goal of explaining the origin of the radial outflow. Therefore, there is a lot to be explained.

Please, point the essay to other people that you know. Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Mario E. de Souza,

Thanks very much for explaining. That must raise the question about 'bulgeless' spiral galaxies - are they thought to have exhausted their bulge material after forming the spirals?

Thanks,

Jim

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear James T. Dwyer,

Yes, there is a direct relationship between age of a spiral galaxy and the size of its bulge. Young galaxies have large bulges and small arms, and old galaxies have small bulges and long arms (I mean arms with many turns). Actually, very young galaxies have very small nascent arms, just coming out. You got the idea.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 23:24 GMT
Dear Mario E. de Souza,

Now I have to ask, presuming that the rotation curves of bulgeless spirals are also generally flat, or at least not compliant with Keplerian diminishing curves, what force would be responsible for their 'anomalous' peripheral rotational velocities?

The models I've become somewhat familiar with, as I understand, generally radially partition a galaxy's disk to determine partition mass from local rotational velocity.

As I see it, those models account for partition velocity resulting from local gravitational binding. In other words, peripheral masses are not expelled despite their high velocities because they are regionally bound to millions of neighboring objects, not independently orbiting any central mass or center of mass, as has been too often thought.

Sorry I can't explain very thoroughly or precisely - you'd have to review my references to get a more complete understanding...

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
Hi James T. Dwyer,

When the nucleus of the galaxy would stop shedding matter outwards the spiral arms would stop growing, that is all. But the matter that was shed would just keep going outwards. We have not yet observed this because galaxies have too much mass in their centers. Take a look at M51 which is an old galaxy. Its bulge is small an its arms have made some turns. It is still shedding matter outwards from its center.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 12:28 GMT
Hi Mario,

Sorry if I'm becoming a pest. I found an interesting survey of large bulgeless spirals in doi:10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54.

It would seem to me that if central outflows of material produced spiral arms and the process eventually stopped that either the outflow velocity would diminish or the spiral arm material would become increasingly sparse near the galactic center, in other words the spiral arms would spread apart from the center. I don't find any of those...

My (uninformed) skepticism is primarily due to the success of models that do not rely on outflow velocity to explain flat rotation curves. Perhaps I'm misinformed...

Thanks,

Jim

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 02:18 GMT
Hi,

Thank you for your comment. You raised a very important point which is not explicit in the essay.

Yes, when the Active Galactic Nucleus will become inactive the outflow should stop and the inner ends of the spiral arms will go away from the center and will get more and more apart from each other.

I did not find your survey on the net. Would you please send me the names of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Hi Mario,

Never mind about the survey link - I see it is the same paper by Kormendy et al that you recommend! I just perused it yesterday - I'll try to read it more thoroughly.

PLEASE read my essay, Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT
Hi James,

I will take a look at your essay. The main idea that is wrong about galaxy formation is the idea of formation of a disk by rotation. In order to achieve this the rotational velocity had to be extremely high and thus it would completely disrupt the whole structure.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
Hi Mario,

I hope you can answer a couple of very basic questions to help me to better comprehend your analysis.

I had understood that rotational velocities, for example, could be determined for spirals that presented some observational angle to us. In this way the rotational velocities of luminous disk objects could be derived from their peculiar spectrum shift relative to us.

That approach would not seem to be available for disks viewed face-on, since their rotational velocity would not be indicated by any redshift of light that we can detect, correct?

Since the galaxies shown in your paper all present a face-on view (the best for identifying the structure of spiral arms), how are 'lateral' velocities determined for what I presume are outflows directed along the disk plane, as are the spiral arms?

I have read of outflows and inflows of gas & dust moving perpendicularly in and out of the plane of a thin galactic disk to produce a thick disk...

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi James,

I only considerend in the essays galaxies that had the radial velocities known and also that could be easily fitted. The radial velocities (also known as outflow velocities) of galaxies that are not faqce-on have not yet been measured. But it is just a matter of making the right projections.

Yes, some galaxies have outflows perpendicular to the disk, but im most of them the outlows are not continuous and are not dense, and in some galaxies there are outflows of radiation. The Milky Way, for example, has two huge lobes of gamma radiation, like balloons, perpendicular to the disk. Read more on this just typing BUBBLES IN THE MILKY WAY on Google.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
Hi Mario,

Thanks very much for the help. Perhaps I'm just too inquisitive, but do you know how 'lateral' or rotational velocity of face-on spirals is determined, since it would seem there'd be no significant spectrum shift of its EM emissions? I can easily understand how rotational velocity is determined for edge-on spirals, since the spectrum of their light that we receive is affected by their relative motion, but not face-on spirals.

Yep, the relativistic jets of AGNs and bubbles of ionized gas are very interesting. By the way, I just happened to notice that the rain bands in Hurricane Isaac (no relation) now sitting on top of New Orleans appear to correspond quite well to the arms of highly developed spiral galaxies. You might not be seeing it on your local weather programs, though...

As I understand, hurricanes are generally driven by rising hot air masses drawing up warm surface water. Could be analogous to the highly energetic central region of short-lived massive star formation and destruction, producing large volumes of dust and gas...

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 02:05 GMT
Hi James,

Actually, a real face-on is very rare. In general out line of sight makes an angle different from 90 degrees with the plane of disk of the galaxy. What researchers determine is a velocity field on the plane of the galaxy. On this I suggest that you read the important paper by J.E. Becjman, A. Zurita and J.C.V. Beltrán Kinematic measurements of gas and stars in spiral galaxies. Just type this title on Google.

A hurricane involves very different processes but we can see an important fact: the aggregation of gas particles into a rotating initial mass of gas produces a single thick arm which is subdivided in different parts.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 12:53 GMT
Mario

Original and interesting essay on an important subject where current theory is very incomplete. See my replies to James on my Blog. As an astronomer long studying galaxy evolution I do have some questions.

As I said to James I agree current interpretation is very poor and mainly wrong, including density waves 'forming' not blending spiral arms, and that we need fresh views if we're to unravel the complex puzzle. But consistency with real data not interpretation is essential, and any model must be judged by it's power to resolve a large tranche of anomalies without contradictions. I thus point out some apparent contradictions the length limit may have prevented you covering, so you can present for discussion.

1. All data from kinetic analysis consistently shows that the radial motion in older (redder population) galaxies from the disc to the core (accretion). The outflow is exclusively as 'jets' perpendicular to the disc, (both ways) from the AGN core. No flow is found along the arms of the bar, except low accretion to the core from the inner ends. This does not seem to match the core of your thesis. How are these findings explained?

2. How are bars formed in your model. (note that recent surveys confirm most galaxies have bars, just not all clearly visible).

3. Why is the average stellar age of the bar older than the age at the inner ends of the spiral arms in an open spiral?

4. You offer no evidence why Foyle a et al are 'wrong' when they do give evidence. Do you have anything specific?

5. Do you have a cause for the kinetic decoupling now found to be common?

I look forward to an interesting discussion. I have evolved an alternative model with some similarities which does seem to resolve the above and other questions, so it should be possible. Do follow the links in my blog, and read the end notes of my essay, dealing with consistent fundamental physics.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 11:16 GMT
Mario,

To better explain why Perter Jackson has referred to my comments on his blog, I referenced you essay in my Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:46 GMT comment about Peter's statement in a preceding comment:

"Just to give you a flavour, a Sept AGN paper abstract is here, discussing the high density jets of re-ionized matter. And one thing I forgot the Milky Way certainly DOES 'still have' and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 14:06 GMT
James/Mario

Free electrons aren't considered 'hot' unless 'accelerated'. Cold dark matter (CDM) semi analytical modelling such as the millenium simulation etc. can also apply.

To sum up my view, Dark matter is only 'dark' as it's not easily 'visible' in the same way as matter, by eye or via spectroscopy, our main tool. I point out that the plasma that we find wherever we've explored is also not visible in that way, but IS visible (detectable) in a number of other ways. So to say 'we know it's not normal matter' only applies to larger particles of mass. Plasma is a bit of a 'half way house' to matter, but is considered the '4th and most common form of matter'.

Our ionosphere is the same, and we've had to send the 4 probe Cluster mission there to physically measure it at the bow shock and magnetotail. It is astonishingly dense, and (see the Fig.2 analysis in Rick Kingsley Nixey's essay), it's magneto-hydrodynamic turbulence and change to wavelength is consistent not only with diffraction, but with the kinetic change to retain local c in each frame. My own essay provides the mechanics for this process, resolving many other issues as it does so.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 21:02 GMT
Hi Peter Jackson,

For no. 1 (on radial outflows) you have just to read the paper of K. Ganda et al. Two-dimensional stellar and emission-line kinematics of 18 late-type spirals observed with SAURON, MNRAS, vol. 367, 46, 2005.

For no. 2: I did not attempt to explain why many spirals have bars, but the paper did find a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 08:27 GMT
Dear Prof. De Souza,

This is a well written Essay. On the other hand, it is founded on your works that I personally recommended for publication.

I am going to give you an high score.

I hope that you will find the time to read our Essay too, see

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1498

Good luck for the Contest and best wishes to you and yours,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 21:12 GMT
Hi Prof. Corda,

It is great that you found the essay well written. Thank you. I will take a look at your essay and wish you good luck too for the Contest.

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:06 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

Regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT
Pentcho

The rules of logic are breached by your assumption. You have falsified nothing because;

Treating frequency f as what it actually IS, the derivative of wavelength and speed, you may also, via c = fL, explain observed co-variance and Doppler shift by directly obtaining c' = f'L', by simply reducing L the obtain the increased f. In fact we KNOW lambda is reduced in higher frequency waves experimentally.

We also know refractive index n is a constant. Whatever the 'state of motion' of any medium. So let's stop cherry picking and ignoring inconvenient facts.

You are trapped in being unable to abandon the assumption that keeps you from enlightenment. This means all you are able to do is 'chant'. I believe you are also capable of physics, but must be able to escape the shackles you wear to enable it.

I repeat, your chanting is counter productive, allowing all dissenters to be called crackpots and special relativity to remain untouched. Please stop and apply some more refined intellect. The evidence of verification is embedded throughout my essay. You have not challenged anything therein.

I invite you as a first step to try to falsify any one of my propositions.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 02:50 GMT
Hello Peter,

I think you sent a message to the worng person.

Regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Mario and Jim

Sorry, now having to re-paste most posts, and it seems I forgot to 'cut', so my long and detailed response to your above comments is lost!

I see Richard has now commented anyway, and he seems familiar with galaxy kinetics and Sauron data. My point was that we must consider actual data in astronomy, which does not agree with radial outflow in the disc plane. 'Opinions' can be found supporting ANY proposition in astronomy. I welcome all views, but we must remember they are not 'evidence'! Ganda does not find or suggest radial outflows, you simply misinterpret his words. All the Atlas 3D analysis confirms the same, as does all past spectroscopy. I don't suggest this disqualifies your thesis, but most astronomers or astrophysicists would just roll their eyes and reject the whole package while that seems integral to it.

I agree no new exotic particles are needed, but if we examine all the real data now available, high electron densities to cannot be ruled out as a source of gravitational potential. I also suggest the Yukawa potential as a closer fit than Newton, with the sharper 'cut off' to the curve found at shocks and haloes. In a way this is another MOND, but also using plasma at the densities actually physically found in equivalent circumstances to remove all the mystery by making the numbers work. But that does still not prove anything I agree.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Peter,

I must repeat the very specific question that I asked Richard regarding the Ganda et al. paper being discussed. Figures 5a-5r on pages 9-26 seem to represent both the stellar and gaseous radial velocity dispersions along identical axial coordinates. There does not appear to be any representation of velocities perpendicular to the galactic plane.

Can you please explain how I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Jim

'Late type' only refers to the Hubble tuning fork sequence not late in evolution. There is no link between 'time' and 'early' and 'late,' types, very misleading for non astronomers I agree. In fact in terms of stellar age the converse is true, the 'cold inner regions' are most prevalent in the younger more open spirals. In those cases the AGN is weak and relatively dormant, so minimal...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for responding. I don't see any reason to become entangled in any discussion of galaxy morphological development - I'll defer to you on all of that.

You stated: "The motion shown in the Ganda Fig's is the same as all (the very many) others, rotational velocity. NOT radial velocity. This is why one side is shifted to blue the other red, the blue side is approaching us,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:19 GMT
Jim

'Late type' only refers to the Hubble tuning fork sequence not late in evolution. There is no link between 'time' and 'early' and 'late,' types, very misleading for non astronomers I agree. In fact in terms of stellar age the converse is true, the 'cold inner regions' are most prevalent in the younger more open spirals. In those cases the AGN is weak and relatively dormant, so minimal...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 20:57 GMT
Peter,

I can only take offense to statements such as "Your comments don't make sense, I assume as based on misunderstandings." I will respond more rationally.

In relation to my comments (about the Bullet Cluster), they are entirely consistent with the referenced text, including the concluding statements:

"But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:23 GMT
Ooops

Cut'n paste issue, only the 2nd half of the above (velocity dispersion) is new!

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Peter,

I thank you a lot your comments above. I reread The paper of Ganda et al. and it refers to measurements of the dispersion velocity sigma and not to direct measurements of the velocities of radial outflows. Thus, you are very right although the data do refer to a plane. I think that I was mislead due to the use of the word radial, but the paper meant the radial profile of the velocity field.

I am reassessing the whole data on the spirals used as examples of the model. It looks like, though, that sigma and the velocities of radial outflows are close since the model works very fine as it worked with the data of other spirals not present in Ganda's paper.

Best regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 00:22 GMT
Hi Peter,

Complementing my last message I have the following below to say. It´s all a matter of nomenclature. As is very clear in the paper Evolution of Structure in Late-type Spiral Galaxies I: Ionized Gas Kinematics in NGC 628, A&A, K. Fathi et al. the dispersion velocity sigma is the velocity of the gas irrespective of direction in the plane of the disk (because in the z direction it is called sigmaz), and thus what I called radial velocity has the same value of sigma and that´s why everything fits nicely.

Best regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 04:54 GMT
Dear Mario Everaldo de Souza

"That is why the newly discovered boson resembles the SM Higgs boson, but is not exactly it."

I also know this through other sources of information.

It seems like CERN is still trying to "found something" although not yet are the defineded for things to look.

If the Higg particle contains the mass (is "heavy")

So: in multi-dimensional space,way or direction was it will be "heavy" follow ?

and why it is "heavy" follow that way or that direction?

How do you think ?

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

I think that CERN found one of three bosons, the neutral boson. And the other two (charged ones) will be found yet.

The Standard model Higgs does not make any sense because it is actually a pre-existing field that appeared from nothing.

Best regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 04:07 GMT
Dear Mario,

First, I really enjoyed your essay. Being from the math side, this type of analysis is extremely useful to me in explaining what is known and providing some solid examples. Second, I have a couple of questions.

1. From the comments in your thread, I take it that you disagree in general with the dark matter hypothesis, rather than merely suggesting it is not present in spiral galaxies? By "dark matter hypothesis" I mean a statement something like "a large percentage of the matter in the universe consists of particles known only through their large-scale gravitational effects."

2. Your paper itself does not seem to propose any dynamical "substitute" for the dark matter hypothesis such as MOND... is such a substitute necessary for spiral galaxies? If not, do you believe that the field equations must be modified to account for other "dark matter" phenomena such as gravitational lensing by galactic clusters?

Thanks, and take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear Ben Dribus,

It has been shown by Geha et al. ApJ 711, 361 (2010) that there is no need of dark matter for explaining the dynamical properties of the ELLIPTICAL galaxy NGC 147, and as I show in the essay, dark matter does not exist in spiral galaxies. Therefore, we conclude that it simply does not exist.I think the galactic lensing has to be explained by other means.

I show you below that there is no place for dark matter in Particle Physics.

Before you read, remember that dark matter would have to be STABLE, and composed of particles with zero charge because dark matter would not interact with light.

Particles are either bosons or fermions. As it is well known bosons do not clump together simply because they make the mediation between fermionic states. Therefore, where there are bosons (confined to some volume) there also are fermions. For example, there is no body made of pions or W´s. And to make things worse all bosons are unstable, except the photon and the hypothetical graviton. Therefore, dark matter would have to be composed of fermions, but from these we have to take out baryons because they interact with light. Thus, we are left with leptons, supposedly the WIMPS. And now we face a long list of drawbacks. First of all, only the light leptons electon, positron and the neutrinos are stable, that is, the heavier leptons suffer weak decays. Secondly, leptons with mass are charged, but dark matter had to be neutral but without being composed of oppositely charged leptons because in such a case it would interact with light. Leptons are arranged in the generations: the electron and its neutrino, the muon and its neutrino and the tau and its neutrino (and their corresponding antiparticles). Where would the WIMP fit in? As you see it does not fit in.

Therefore, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR DARK MATTER IN PARTICLE PHYSICS. DARK MATTER IS JUST A KING OF NEW ETHER.

Best regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear Mario and Ben,

Once again I'd like to add my two cents to Ben's questions, especially #1. I'm not a historian, but I think that if you examine the history of dark matter within the physics community, it's not seriously considered until the 1980s when Vera Rubin et al presented the conclusive results of >10 yesrs of observation indicating that spiral galaxies do not comply with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Mario E. de Souza replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 01:14 GMT
Dear Jim,

You gave an excellent account of the whole problem with the dark matter hypothesis. Yes, I also think that the weak gravitational lensing is a very complicated subject that has to have a solution outside dark matter. Cosmologists will have to change their views if they really are scientists.

Best wishes,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Sergey Fedosin,

Thank you very much for your explanation on the rating.

Best regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear Mario,

In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the subject of my essay, The AGN engine is supposed in the number of neutron stars in the centers of galaxies. These neutron stars have common magnetic field which drive the motion of substance. Also the Gravitational torsion field from rotation of stars can drive the substance in jets giving spiral structures.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Mario E. de Souza replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:28 GMT
Dear Sergey,

I think that it is a possible way. But probably the cause is the repulsive nature of the strong force at very close distances. Take a look, for example, at the nuclear potential between two neutrons in terms of the distance between them.

Best regards,

Mario

report post as inappropriate