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

Peter Jackson: on 1/16/13 at 10:42am UTC, wrote Jim, I remind you it was you who claimed my principal axiom was nonsense...

James Dwyer: on 1/15/13 at 21:14pm UTC, wrote Peter! It's rude and inappropriate for you to continuously make personal...

Peter Jackson: on 1/15/13 at 20:45pm UTC, wrote Jim, And yet more gas further out of course does no harm at all to...

James Dwyer: on 1/14/13 at 22:56pm UTC, wrote Peter, I take offense to insinuations that I have unsubstantiated beliefs:...

Peter Jackson: on 1/14/13 at 22:21pm UTC, wrote Jim, The sun is r=8kpc so 50kpc is the area I'm discussing, and the...

James Dwyer: on 1/14/13 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote Peter, I must have mistyped 'ctrl-z, inadvertently truncating the prior...

Peter Jackson: on 1/14/13 at 20:43pm UTC, wrote Jim, I just doggedly try to falsify models, which is a little different....

James Dwyer: on 1/14/13 at 20:35pm UTC, wrote Peter, A Google search finally did locate the article you were trying to...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Hosein, the MWI of Everett is a philosophical different..." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "Reality is a many-worlds Quantum level event." in Good Vibrations

Kwan Chiang: "Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Monika Součková: "What do you feel the most exciting or effective learning environment would..." in Quantum Machine Learning...

Jim Snowdon: "Had we evolved on a swiftly rotating planet like the Earth, our..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "If the rotational motion of the moon is 370km per hour, and the rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and..." in How does an Isolated...

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

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.

FQXi FORUM
January 18, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: 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 the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter by James T. Dwyer [refresh]

Author James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

Astronomers using new, improved spectrographic equipment to study galactic rotation during the 1970s initially presumed that spiral galaxies were ‘standard’ orbital systems, just like the Solar system, and that the laws of planetary motion should apply. As a result, when the rotational velocities of disk objects were found to be generally flat at all peripheral radii, conflicting with characteristic Keplerian rotation curves, it was concluded that either classical mechanics had been falsified at large scales, or that some enormous, undetected form of matter must be present to extend the distribution of galactic mass to very large radii. The procedural assessment conducted here shows that very large scale aggregations of massive objects cannot be expected to rotate like the highly centralized mass of the Solar system. Newton proved long ago that Keplerian relations specifically apply only to the mass distribution inherent in the Solar system. As a result, no galactic dark matter need be inferred from any discrepancy with Keplerian rotation curves.

Author Bio

Information systems analyst with more than 30 years experience with very large scale systems. Retired in 2005 after 26 years with Federal Express, Technical Fellow, Information Technology, Systems Planning.

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:15 GMT
James,

You do not mention that Newtonian mechanics requires gravity to have an "instantaneous influence at a distance" in solar system distances.

If you read Georgina Perry's essay, topic 1316, you will have noted the term "incomplete information." Incomplete information is responsible for many of the contemporary assumptions, and some of these assumptions are considered as facts....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:57 GMT
Frank,

Please note that I am not a physicist, but an information systems analyst. I have no opinion regarding your objections to Newton's mechanics, but I must point out in his defense that classical physics continues to be extensively and successfully used in a broad range of applications.

However, my essay is not a defense of any theory but an analysis of the process used to infer the galactic presence of imaginary dark matter by improperly applying empirically derived description planetary motions (not based on any theory) to inappropriate galactic distributions of mass.

It seems to me that your comments have nothing to do with the subject of my essay. If you have some thoughts about the subject of my essay I'll be glad to try to address them, even though I'm not a theoretical physicist.

Best wishes to you.

ABAHAM replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 02:14 GMT
James,

What I think Frank was alluding to is the fact that longitudinal EM waves [LWs] provide not only a basis for Newton's action-at-a-distance but also provide a physical mechanism to explain the rotational velocities of galaxies [currently requiring Dark Matter as an explanation].

Cosmology only recognises Gravity as the force acting between planets and Stars on the cosmic scale - yet Newton's formulation for G [Matter] is essentially the same as Coulomb's formulation for k [charge]. Some concession is made with magnetic field lines on the SUN etc but as Faraday, Gauss & Maxwell all pointed out - you can't have Magnetic fields without their associated Electric fields.

In short the Cosmos is an ElectroMagnetic environment and it is the E field interactions [of LWs] that facilitate the noted velocity curves, unfortunately cosmologists don't want to acknowledge E fields throughout space so they 'invent' Dark Matter to explain the observations.

In that sense Newton was correct by modelling the observed motions of planets etc to determine the nett Gravitational force but as EM fields were not known to him at the time he was unable to explain its instantaneous action-at-a-distance force. [it also explains why G & k are so similar in form]

Any account of Gravitation must take into account all the forces present - Gravitation by Matter, Magnetic perturbations and E field accelerations.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
Abaham,

Thank you for explaining more fully, and especially for the attached files (I almost missed them) illustrating transverse and longitudinal EM waves and the chart illustrating their suggested conceptual application to galactic rotation. IMO, this chart continues to perpetuate the misconception that galactic gravitation can be evaluated using simple Keplerian methods of approximation...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
Abaham,

It is Kepler's quite reasonable empirical conception that the effect of gravitation is 'centrally' directed, as each planet's motions are effectively determined primarily by the Sun. I think the 'interactive' feature described by the 'E field acceleration' conception of galactic rotation is, in essence, correct, but best described as 'dispersed' effects - directly related the dispersal of galactic mass.

Even in the scenario where 'attractive' effects are at least partly produced by EM emissions, surely their should be some correspondence between mass dispersal and EM emission amplitude and directional effects - similarly to gravity.

As I understand, there must be some apparently attractive force effect that exactly corresponds to mass, since the relatively cold moon, for example, emits little if any EM radiation of any kind yet produces gravitational effects precisely consistent with its mass.

While EM attraction effects certainly exist, I'm very skeptical that it is responsible for any significant attractive effect at astronomical scales...

At any rate, regarding your statement, "Any account of Gravitation must take into account all the forces present - Gravitation by Matter, Magnetic perturbations and E field accelerations," I think this is falsified by the success of Keplerian approximations within the Solar system. Mathematical models are not necessarily required to describe all possible conditions, only those to which they are applied. Ptolemy quite successfully described the geocentric motions of celestial objects for about a thousand years... Similarly, successful demonstration of a mathematical model does not require that it accurately represents all of the factors contributing to the physical conditions portrayed.

Thanks again.

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear James,

I enjoyed your excellent well-written essay, but unfortunately I don't agree with your reasoning or conclusions. I have an alternative solution with supporting real data for evidence. The galaxy rotation curves can be understood in relation to the many problems with Milankovitch ice age theory. You don't have to be a physicist to understand it, just very open minded.

Best wishes,

Alan

Essay entry: Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Alan,

Best wishes,

Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT
James

It's clear dark matter is very poorly understood. As an astronomer I've been studying and analysing the evidence for many years, some of which seems even more complex and bizarre than you point out. There are dozens of papers a month published in the MNRAS with excellent new data from the many billions dollars of hardware now exploring haloes. Over half of this is inconsistent with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 21:13 GMT
Peter,

Since you referred me to both your FQXi essay and a separate research report in your preceding comment, I'll respond here. I'll apologize in advance for being blunt, but I think there's some important issues that must be addressed.

As a lay information systems analyst I cannot reasonably assess your essay, but I am compelled to point out a critical misrepresentation of the...

view entire post

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear James Dwyer,

When eigen-rotational angle of a string is in progressive and regressive variability in cycles, its peripheral end maps a spherical spiral from inside a sphere and represents a spiral galaxy. Ellipse of orbit of each planet around the sun indicates that each elliptical orbit is part of another orbit in the celestial sphere.

Thus the observable universe differ from actual universe in that the non-observational dark matter described in Lambda-CDM model of cosmology is described differently in a segmental universe as, incoherent cluster-matters for the observer cluster-matter in a locality.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:42 GMT
Jim,

Great work as usual.

One question: If you are not correct, then it's possible that dark matter might exist. Since many galaxies have flat rotation curves, and given the fact that these galaxies don't all have the same mass nor do they rotate at the same velocities, what are the mathematical odds that each of these galaxies would conveniently contain just the right amount of dark matter for them to individually produce this specific rotation behavior?

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT
Chris,

Great question. For all (especially spiral) galaxies to have just enough dark matter to produce a generally flat (or even increasing) rotation curve rather than the inappropriately expected diminishing curve, there would have to be some feedback mechanism at work in the development of galaxies such that the amount and/or the distribution of ordinary mass would just fit the amount of...

view entire post

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 12:38 GMT
Chris/James

The 'lock step' rotation isn't strictly flat, it's gently graded and has 'steps' at certain 'virial' radii, with dense shocks at the change in velocity (equivalent to the Unruh effect and the incresaed 'intensity' giving photoionization). So if the rotating body represents a coherent inertial frame in accordance with both Galilean relativity and SR, as we know it does with the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Peter,

If I understand you correctly, in plain terms the "chicken and egg job" you describe refers to your scenario in which the galactic effects commonly attributed to dark matter halos are instead the products of plasma halos, similar to the x-ray emitting intracluster medium within galaxy clusters. Your description of "increased velocity at the boundary propagates an increased ion...

view entire post

Marcoen Cabbolet wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 21:36 GMT
Hello James,

The reasoning in your essay is quite interesting.

I haven't read the papers you mentioned in the appendix of your essay, but the central section of your essay, "Establishing Requirements for Galactic Dark Matter", contains no references to earlier publications with the same argument. So my question is: is this reasoning entirely yours?

If so, you might want to pursue the issue further and discuss it with some professional astronomers; I wouldn't approach those who have made a name with dark matter research, but perhaps the ones mentioned in the appendix of your essay find it interesting. You might be able to get a full journal article out of it with a valuable point.

Best regards, Marcoen

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Hello

Thanks for your very supportive comment. I have read some related unpublished remarks by C. F. Gallo referring to the initial misconception of galactic dark matter, although I arrived at these ideas independently and have developed them much further. J. D. Carrick and F. I. Cooperstock make some brief mention of the same issues in their unpublished paper referenced in my essay. I had previously discussed those points in emails to one of them. I have had some fairly extensive discussions with a number of the authors of my references, including directing them to this and somewhat similar previous essays. However, while the discussions have been very favorable, none have addressed the specific points made here.

I approach this problem as a highly experienced (retired) information systems analyst. Somehow I get the impression that physicists may have a wholly different perspective - and tend to dismiss my analysis (I cannot produce any mathematical proofs, etc., although they are certainly achievable to someone more capable).

I also suspect that there is a great deal of professional reluctance to so directly criticize the established work of a so highly regarded astronomer as Vera Rubin, not to mention the many thousands of researches that have published works presuming the existence of galactic dark matter over the past several decades. I have unsuccessfully attempted to contact Vera Rubin directly several times during the past few years.

I do appreciate your interest, but don't feel that I'm capable of producing a paper that would be accepted for publication. If you would be interested in further developing this line of reasoning - I would certainly consider a collaboration!

Sincerely,

Jim

M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:45 GMT
Mr Dwyer, interesting work, well researched. I agree that dark matter is the symptom that we do not understand gravity. I believe this stems from our lack of understanding of space. And to think that not that long ago some were proposing that we had neared the end of physics! It appears we have hardly begun.

I especially value your selection of references and will follow up later on.

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
M. Vasilyeva, thanks very much for your consideration and very kind remarks.

I wholeheartedly agree that understanding the physical nature of spacetime is crucial to more completely understanding gravitation.

Best wishes in your future studies, Jim

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear James,

Of course the problem of dark matter up to now is not resolved and also needed in much attention. In the article: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. another possibility is studied for dark matter which arose in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay). Nuons as new particles may be the reason for dark matter.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 08:05 GMT
Very sorry uncle James, was a silly bug too.

In view of her: dark matter as well as the gravity force,is the call comes from our subjective perception for "things and phenomena" of Nature.

That is, the way to call it, we have created a concept to accept, and inadvertently acknowledged that is the nature of things or phenomena.

To be able to assess the nature of dark matter and gravity in theory Absolutely,i need to have specific information about objects or events that make calling to that.

The information my get of the two problems mentioned above is very vague, so do not dare to participate more in the assessment of this specific areas.

Or rather I see two issues in an other way even is completely different, so if I take join in it, will have to rename for both that problem.

Probably is a bit more complicated than the scope of an essay contest.

The Absolutely theory of me is built completely independent, so defined or determined also completely different with all of current theory.

Absolutely theory without the gravity or dark matter to solve problems "matter or force".

So is repeat "sorry" with uncle, hoping uncle did not therefore then stop constantly, we're sure there are many other topics in the vast ocean of knowledge, okay ? Uncle James.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT
Uncle Jim.

Thrust (of liquid) Acsimet (Archimedes) is the Famous story as "Eureka!" by Archimedes (Greek) found when he see insurgent water level in the tub!

Archimedes theorem of thrust is stated as follows:

Any object submerged in whole or in part, in a fluid will be a thrust equivalent, but in the opposite direction, the weight of the fluid occupied - Excerpt from vi.wikipedia. org

According to my research on gravity: the naming and application the "Gravity" has created a vague and not specific to the real nature of this force.

We still naming for the force was "to stick" our with the Earth's is the gravity, and that it is an "attraction" due to the earth rotation (generated magnetic), while accepting that cause of the "space bending" of the Earth as well as the Sun and other planets.

According to my absolute principle: each problem by only one cause.

The conclusion will be confirmed for - the "gravity" above - is:

1.The sun is the only source of motivation to decide all the activity in the Solar System.So its nature is to create resources "pushed out" and not "attract in".

2.The earth and other planets (as well as other objects) in the solar system will be in force "Pressed down" or "compression in" and not be able to "self-attracting".

Therefore, if the "gravity" is applied, including the Sun and the planets in the solar system is not correct.

If we try to apply it may be to accept the repulsive force is reasonable.

Interpretation issues in my essay as a "suggestive" (according direction of FQXi) plus the English language "automatically" will annoy you.

Suggest you sympathize and asked to me more detailed

Dear Uncle ! Have you accidental have one granddaughter is "Gravity and attraction" ?

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT
My reply, posted on the author's essay blog:

Caohoàng Hai thân men,

If I understand, then, you propose that the gravitational effects causing planets to orbit the Sun are not the same universal gravitation that causes moons to orbit planets? Since the law of universal gravitation can be very usefully applied to both realms, it seems to me unlikely that the two nearly identical effects would be caused by different processes.

As I tried to explain, I personally view gravitation as a 'push' from space contracted by a condensed mass. The appearance of attraction as described by Newton is the combined result of two opposingly directed 'pushing' fields of space.

I do not subscribe to the existence of a physical force of attraction, only the approximation of a net effect of attraction produced by the interaction of external fields produced by massive objects. That aside, I really don't know how many accidental granddaughters I have - I do think the two I know are quite attractive, but that's a different matter...

Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Jim

Do you realize the term 'velocity dispersion' has nothing to do with 'direction'? It is a notional value of relative speed range 'spreads'. I repeat, and I'm sorry, but it seems both you and Mario have misinterpreted the terminology'; there is no implication of any but trivial radial motion in Ganda Fig 5a, and more disc plane inflow (jet 'feedback') than outflow in Sauron findings. A...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 21:07 GMT
I repost here my response to Peter's comment, originally posted at Mario de Souza's essay blog...

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...

view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:36 GMT
Jim

If someone resists accessing actual evidence but proposes something contrary that's fine, but that's called speculation not science and I'm sure you can judge how its veracity is viewed.

You now 'urge me to consider' evidence assuming I have not done so for both that and far better evidence very closely for some years. You assumption is incorrect. But I also still don't agree...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 02:03 GMT
I've reposted my response to Peter from his essay's blog below.

Peter,

We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims...

view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
Jim

Open access for particle physics in UK announced (IOP). All journal articles are to be free access, (as the work is mainly government funded). It's a start at least, perhaps for astronomy as well in ~13.7Gyr.!

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Peter,

Yes - this is great news! I hope this or some similar model suppoting free access is adopted by all other fields of study.

Thanks, Jim

Anonymous replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Jim

SDSS 111 Data Release 9 including the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) and spectra of 1.35 million galaxies, has just been made public. This is 2 years work and gives a large database against which to test key aspects of theory. I'm not sure if you can get straight in, but maybe best to go through the SDSS Sky Server web site; http://skyserver.sdss3.org/public/en as you'll need some guidance on how to use it.

Unfortunately you still have to but copies of explanatory and interpretative papers, and it does not include the kinetic data, but it's a start. (You should find it consistent with my model and observations but let me know if you find any that appears not to be!).

I appreciate your expressed concern that my analysis of plasma 'dark matter' density and distribution may not accord with mainstream. Along with the announcement of the above in this months RAS magazine are the latest findings of dark matter within the solar system and particularly near the sun, including the comment; "...techniques used in the last 20 years were biased, underestimating the amount of dark matter." (99% certainty estimate). And yipee! the MNRAS paper is available on arxiv.org/pdf/1206.0015v2.pdf Of course it uses a model, the most precise yet, of the inner solar system, but maps the behaviour of the many 'K-dwarves' to quantify the density and distribution, so you still can't physically 'see' it. If we could of course it wouldn't be 'dark' matter.

There are other excellent articles this month, on angular momentum of stars, galaxy magnetic fields, and accretion disc MHD flows, so it's worth buying (Blackwell Publishing).

I hope all that may aid your quality of research. And thank you for the kind comment about the cream rising to the top.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
Perter,

I'm too exhausted to delve into such minutia right now, but if their models are correct then we should hear of confirmed dark matter particle detections real soon!

BTW, as best I can determine, these researchers are still trying to fit galactic rotation curves to Keplerian expectations - I find no explanation as to why they are doing so.

My assertion is that there is no justification for expecting spiral galaxies to comply with the laws of planetary motion that expressly apply only to two-body gravitational relations - there's simply no need for dark matter to correct Keplerian rotation curves to produce those observed.

Interesting research though, or at least curious...

Thanks, Jim

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 16:09 GMT
Hi Jim, we met on the Sciam blog about two years ago and I see this is like me already your second participation with the FQXi contest. I read your essay with much attention and think that when you mention "I am just a "layman" it is not a bad proposition (from your point of view). Please as a layman listen attentively to proffessionals like Peter Jackson, besides that he is a professional that has a very open mind and a lot of intriguing new visions, all based on the facts that astronomy has put up untill today.

About dark matter which represents 95% of our visual universe (but is not visible) , I have no specific ideas only that the forces that are attributed to it are "emergent" from Total Simultaneity (TS).

If you are interested pls read/rate and/or comment "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", which is quite another approach of our "reality".

I look forward for your opinion.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 19:02 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Whether my status as a layperson in the field of physics is or isn't a bad "proposition" for me, I'm compelled to make that honest disclosure up front so that others might realize might level of expertise. As to my professional standing, I worked exceedingly hard for several decades as a highly accomplished information systems analyst. When I raise a very specific technical issue I expect a professional response, not a lecture on my demeanor. Thank you for your personal advice...

I see you have no specific thoughts regarding my essay. Thanks for your comment.

Jim

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:42 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:11 GMT
Sergey,

Thanks for your notification, I guess. Not that it makes any real difference, since, unlike some others, I haven't been mass marketing my essay to the rest of the community, soliciting ratings (some even hinting at Quid pro quo). As a result I could see that mine would not be in the top 35 essays as rated by the community.

However I should inform you that, with my background in information systems analysis, I find that my essay's position within the list ordered by community rating dropped precipitously following you rating notice. That indicates two conditions: my essay had not been rated by many members of the community and your rating was substantially lower than previous ratings.

Again, all this rating stuff is meaningless since my essay would not have ever been one of the finalists (unless perhaps I had very successfully supported it with an intense marketing effort). However, more important to me than knowing you rated my essay would be to better understand why you might have given it a low rating, presuming that your rating was based on some specific evaluations of my essay. With no animosity, I would be very interested in understanding your assessment of my essay. Please do explain further!

Sincerely, Jim

Christian Corda wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Jim,

I enjoyed with your interesting Essay, hence, I am going to give you an high score.

Notice that, even admitting that Galaxy Rotation Problem could represent a fundamental falsification of Newton’s law of universal gravitation (this is the issue on which you disagree in your Essay) there is a problem which is even greater. The existence of Dark Matter is admitted in order to justify Newtonian theory. But the most precise theory of gravitation that we have at the present time is general relativity rather than Newtonian theory! In the framework of general relativity the energy is coordinate dependent, hence we CANNOT speak of Dark Matter!!!

You could be interested to another approach to solve the Dark Matter in this paper that I wrote with two colleagues: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0147

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Chris,

Thanks so much for reading my essay - and especially your kind remarks!

I understand (in principle) that general relativity is fundamentally more accurate than classical physics and at least more correctly and more completely describes the physical effects of gravitation. However, I must take exception to the statement that "The existence of Dark Matter is admitted in...

view entire post

Christian Corda replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thanks for your kind clarifications on your ideas on the the misapplication of overly-simplistic methods of approximation based on pre-Newtonian physics. I well know Fred Cooperstock, he is a great scientist who sometimes disagrees with various extremisms of orthodox science.

I propose you a challenge. You should try to find the CORRECT methods of approximation based on Newtonian physics in order to see if that they could carefully, i.e from a rigorous mathematical treatment, explain the motion of the stars in a galaxy.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 11:01 GMT
Dear Chris,

Firstly, did I not adequately demonstrate that galactic dark matter was inferred by the simple misapplied specification that objects in spiral galaxies should rotate in compliance with Kepler's third law of planetary motion? That erroneous conclusion was not based on any analysis employing Newtonian dynamics or gravitation.

I'm neither a physicist nor mathematician, so...

view entire post

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Jim,

Sorry if you thought that I was correcting you, I am not at all the one that is able for that.

I reread yor essay and indeed it is indicating as I understood it now, the old ways of regarding the complex movement of galaxies. You mention that the Keplerian rotation curves cannot be applied on structures like galaxies, and I fully agree. There is indeed a vast distribution of massive objects and perhaps we should regard it as a fluid with all the mechanics and formula's that goes with fluid mechanics, this is just perhaps a wrong idea, but it can change the way of thinking about dark matter, as in your well written essay.

Good luck in the contest.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Sorry if I was testy - I'm easily exhausted these days.

Thanks very much for reading my essay - I think you've understood it well.

Your idea that large scale compound masses behave as fluids seems to me to have merit, although I can't follow the math of general relativity or fluid dynamics. I think there are strong similarities. Certainly compound objects comprised of billions of loosely bound interacting discrete objects of mass must in at least some ways behave as particles in a fluid! Their individual masses and bindings are more variable than water molecules', though. It seems things are always more complex than we'd like!

Best wishes, Jim

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Jim,

I do not understand fluid mechanics, as said I am just a retired architect, the only thing I thought of when reading your essay was when I stirred the milk in a cup of coffee, you also see these galaxy forms, maybe this approach is a different one, just trating a whole galaxy as a fluid. You have more insight as I have so perhaps think about it.

thanks for being on good terms again.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:08 GMT
Uncle Jim !

as well as DEAR TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:23 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
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:52 GMT
Sergey,

I do have an aversion to equations, especially since retiring. If I understand, though, if a new rating is is made for an essay that is slightly lower than the existing average rating for that essay, the new average rating will be reduced. Is that correct?

There may be another consideration in the ranking of essays by rating: if an essay's rating was tied or very close to many other essays, even a slight reduction in rating could significantly reduce an essay's position withing the rating ordered list. In that case a single rating (even one that is not so 'bad') could produce a large drop in the essay rankings.

Thanks very much for explaining. Once I began watching the rankings I noticed in particular that my essay repeatedly jumped up & down between ~50 & 100 in very dramatic swings. It's now settled down to something >100. Well, I never hoped to be a finalist anyway and don't have any professional aspirations.

Sergey, I sincerely apologize if I (and others) unfairly accused you of making excessively low ratings. Please consider that your 'rating announcement' postings called people's attention to whatever change was produced. At any rate, I'll now consider that you must have given me a fair and deserved rating.

Sorry again, Jim

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear James,

I tried rate your essay repeatedly but it is impossible. So I see that in this Contest I was tricked by the Contest system of rating. Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed? It is a pity but FQXi up to now do not answer my questions in 3 letters to them.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:52 GMT
Dear James,

Just now I sent a letter to mail@fqxi.org :

Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 11:47 GMT
Dear Sergey,

I suspect there's not much that FQXi could do to change things in this contest, unless they could possibly identify your ratings and retract them. Again, watching the rankings, I suspect there are others who did not really understand the effect their ratings would have. I'll see what I can suggest to the administrator. I imagine they (I think it's more like 'he') are quite busy at this time - perhaps they'll respond soon. Thanks very much for you efforts in this regard!

Sincerely, Jim

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear James,

Thanks for the interesting essay, and in particular for pointing out the simple but important point that Kepler's laws are totally inadequate for describing the gravitational dynamics of a system with significant extended mass distribution. I suppose an extreme example could be found at a much smaller scale by simply considering a gas giant... it would be ridiculous to expect...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Ben,

Thanks very much for reading my essay - I'm very glad you enjoyed it appreciated it. I really enjoyed your remarks and insights.

I have read both Theo Nieuwenhuizen's & Mario de Souza's essays and have had some interesting discussions with Mario. Frankly, offhand & forget what Theo's was about - I lost track of it when he didn't respond to some comment I made. Maybe I'll go back to it. I find Mario's galaxy evolution model very interesting, as long as his conception of lateral outflows is valid (I think it is). BTW, if you didn't notice there are some modeling references in my "Supplemental Info." & "Works Cited" sections that use classical dynamics and gravitation to more properly represent the mass distribution of spiral galaxies and describe their observed rotational characteristics. Unfortunately the dynamic link in the "Supp..." section is wrong for probably the best reference:

James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.

I think some teacher(s) around 1960 ruined me for math - my grandson and two granddaughters love it! I may not be able to follow you essay very well, but I'll give it a shot tonight.

I now think (most of)) the ratings issues are mostly unfortunate misunderstandings perhaps mostly by those whose first language is not English. I also thing the rating scale of 1-10 (averaged, I think) produces a lot of ties, meaning that (especially for essays with few ratings like mine) small changes produce big swings in their position within the ranking ordered list.

I do have some more thoughts about my essay and some of the topics you mentioned - I'll try to bore you with them a little later.

Thanks very much for your interesting discussion!

Jim

Author James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 10:37 GMT
BTW, after all the unintentional and any intentional dramatic ranking effects, as of this late writing IMO, based on my small sampling of essays read, the cream has risen to the top. I hope there are no more dramatic upheavals.

Despite my now below average ranking, I can take solace in knowing that the authors whose works I was most impressed with seemed to regard my essay very well! I was almost a finalist for a minute! Frankly, I am surprised by my essay's wild ranking swings and current low ranking, but then I'm retired, anyway.

Sincerely, Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:55 GMT
Jim

I referred to other correlating methods used in halo density analysis, but couldn't locate any public access papers on angular momentum. There is however an article on this in the A&G Magazine I refer above (27th Sept string) which should be of great interest.

This looks at the question 'in reverse' assuming a low ion density then announcing the loss of angular momentum, (i.e. as 'clouds' form into 'bodies') as a major problem. Of course an increase in retained ion 'halo' density to that implied by gravitational behaviour resolves the problem.

The magazine isn't quite the MNRAS, but it is an easier read and full of information pertinent to your interests this month (aag@wiley.com).

In response to your note (in the 27th string) about finding 'dark matter' soon, I confirm I agree they won't, but predict they'll just keep finding increasingly higher ion densities, as they have for the last 40 years!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 20:13 GMT
Jim,

An MNRAS 'Dark Matter' paper also on arxiv. I thought of Mario and you when reading it.July 2012 It's consistent with scores of others, right or wrong, but uses a different method to constrain particle densities. It's treated as I suggest, simply as 'matter' that is not yet within our limited detection capabilites (which may soon be changed by Gaia etc).

'Optical' images are also improving, and right out to cluster scale. The concept or term 'exotic particles' is very rarely used in astronomy. The 'warm hot intergalactic medium' (WHIM) is far more familiar. i.e. as this weeks ESA bulletin; Combined Planck optical image

I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS I'll also post this on your own string.

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 04:37 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for the references. I'll try to review the research report later.

However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?

Also, at least the ESA article you referenced makes no mention of 'WHIM' as dark matter - it instead states that astronomers cannot find as much baryonic matter as expected:

"But there's a problem: the amounts of baryonic matter detected via astronomical observations in the distant, ancient Universe and in the nearby one do not match. Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

The article goes on to suggest that undetected WHIM constitutes the missing BARYONIC matter - not any dark matter.

Thanks,

Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 10:43 GMT
Jim,

That's right, and exactly what I've been saying. You seemed to have picked up on just one 'theorist' view that 'dark matter' can't be baryonic. In Astronomy (who found it after all!) that assumption has never been the case, thus your initial misunderstanding and objection to the fundamental thesis of my essay and Fig caption. But that means your last line is still wrong; 'dark' only...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT
Peter,

Once again you miss my points completely! I'll try again and be very direct.

1. Wouldn't a Milky Way "Dark Matter halo" (I'm not making this up out of ignorant confusion - refer to the link) that was actually composed of baryonic WHIM or whatever, necessarily emit EM radiation? At the specified densities, why would such massive halos, comprising up to 90% of total galactic...

view entire post

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
Jim,

You asked; "Wouldn't a Milky Way "Dark Matter halo"...that was actually composed of baryonic WHIM or whatever, necessarily emit EM radiation? At the specified densities, why would such massive halos, comprising up to 90% of total galactic mass, not be detected?

I'm sorry if you felt I hadn't answered that, but I wrote; it was because: "Detectable' does not imply detected" so...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 20:20 GMT
Peter,

OK, I'll play: why would it not be detectable?

Jim

Author James T. Dwyer replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
Peter,

Why does the hot intracluster medium emit x-rays? Don't all hot gasses emit EM radiation? How could dense baryonic plasma configured as galactic 'dark matter halos' avoid emitting EM radiation and detection by astronomers?

Regarding: "I try not to seek 'support' for my postulations but genuine falsification..." Please refer to my prior comment in which I quoted from your referenced 'supporting documentation', (Combined Planck optical image):

"... The WHIM is the baryonic component of the cosmic web, a filamentary network of both dark and baryonic matter that is believed to pervade the Universe..."

Didn't you earlier state, regarding the referenced links:

"I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'?"

"However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?"

You responded by repeating past lectures about not all EM radiation being visible and stating:

"Your comments betray the limited anthropocentric view of those unfamiliar with astronomy (many IN astronomy still have it!). As I said before, most detection is not done just in the insignificant 'visible' band but using spectroscopy, which includes the whole EM range from below radio to gamma wavelengths."

What could possibly have made you think that I don't understand that the visible spectrum is a small segment of the entire EM frequency spectrum?

Sincerely

Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Jim,

I suspect I've run out of different ways to answer. You seem confident you already know what's out there, and all 'findings' from data are only interpretations after all, so if you're really not willing to change your own view why ask? I really don't 'know' what's out there, and do change my opinion, which is why I study a score of new papers a week to keep up with findings and form...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author James T. Dwyer wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 00:22 GMT
Peter,

Why do you repeatedly focus on making personal evaluations - I'm not interested in your assessments or comments about me.

Intracluster medium

"In astronomy, the intracluster medium (ICM) is the superheated plasma present at the center of a galaxy cluster. This is gas heated to temperatures of between roughly 10 and 100 megakelvins and consisting mainly of ionised hydrogen and helium, containing most of the baryonic material in the cluster. The ICM strongly emits X-ray radiation."

"The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei."

"The ICM is composed primarily of ordinary baryons (mainly ionised hydrogen and helium). This plasma is enriched with heavy elements, such as iron. The amount of heavy elements relative to hydrogen (known as metallicity in astronomy) is roughly a third of the value in the sun. Most of the baryons in the cluster (80-95%) reside in the ICM, rather than in the luminous matter, such as galaxies and stars. However, most of the mass in a galaxy cluster consists of dark matter..."

I repeat, how could 'dark matter halos' actually composed of baryonic matter (as you propose) of sufficient mass density to account for the flat rotation curve of spiral galaxies (up to 95% of total galactic mass contained within a radius ~3 times that of the galactic disk) - not emit EM radiation detectable by current astronomical equipment?

Please refrain from making any personal remarks about me - I'm not in the least interested in your opinion of me.

Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 13:41 GMT
Jim,

I'm trying to understand from the same evidence (partly at least) how such apparently diverse conclusions can be drawn. How evidence is assimilated is central. I've made no personal remarks, but I'm sure you agree that 'how' science is done varies to great effect.

I think I now understand better. The quotes you give can mislead, for a very good reason. They discuss what HAS been...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author James T. Dwyer wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 14:25 GMT
Peter,

I know what CDM stands for, thanks. Wimps are proposed to be non-interacting, therefore generally cold, so that they would not be detectable.

As I understand, the quotation explains that the intracluster medium emits x-rays because it is compressed by gravitation, producing physical particle interactions and frictional heating. I think this is true for all baryonic particles of mass.

I expect that baryonic mass as dense as that required to produce observed 'flat' rotation curves would necessarily interact, producing frictional heating and the emission of EM radiation.

How can dense baryonic matter be cold? Since its particles would collide, (in straightforward terms) they would be heated and charged, correct?

I don't doubt improved detection equipment will likely find more sparse, non-emitting baryonic matter in intergalactic space.

I do not accept the idea that baryonic matter in any form can fulfill the requirements specified for dark matter, especially at the mass densities required to fit observed galaxy rotation curves to Keplerian expectations.

Jim

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT
Jim,

Interesting revelations re haloes from the AAS meeting this year. I thought of you with this one, providing what you were asking for, a direct observation, and of a far more dense and wide halo than previously assumed, right in line with my DFM predictions. But I've yet seen no paper.

I know you may prefer to believe what you wish to, but nevertheless here it is to be falsified;

AAS 2013 Meeting, Direct Massive Halo Findings Reported.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Peter,

IMO it is you who doggedly pursue your own beliefs - while snipping at my ankles! The evidnece you refer to again does not appear: the link returns an website error page indicating page not found.

Again further researching you claims with a site search does return a hit from Nov. of last year, but I hope this is not what you're referring to: Astronomers use advanced equipment aboard Hubble to reveal galaxies' most elusive secrets.

That article seems to have been based on the research report: Not Dead Yet: Cool Circumgalactic Gas in the Halos of Early Type Galaxies, which uses conjecture and admittedly simple approximations methods to derive at some unreliable galactic mass estimates for the MW.

Please stop snipping at me with incomplete information.

Jim

Author James T. Dwyer replied on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
Peter,

A Google search finally did locate the article you were trying to link to - the correct link: Notre Dame astronomers find massive supply of gas around modern galaxies.

This research seems to be focused on peripheral galactic gas metalicity and its influence in star formation. The only mention of galactic mass estimates in the articles is the statement "the circumgalactic gas probed in this study was also found to have a mass comparable to that of all the gas within the galaxies themselves, thus providing a substantial reservoir for fueling continued star formation in modern galaxies." There's no explanation of how they arrived at that conclusion, but, again, previous gravitational studies had found that dark matter halos must provide nearly 10 times the galactic mass provided by ordinary matter.

I didn't find any source for the research report, but its amazing how many news reports that include the sentence, "The members' work, "The Bimodal Metallicity Distribution of the Cool Circumgalactic Medium at z

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
Jim,

I just doggedly try to falsify models, which is a little different. Indeed I've just falsified part of the whole logical foundation and ditched it, which actually then exposed a far better one, also suggesting the fundamental cause of the 'incompleteness' identified in Godel's theorem. Not being afraid to abandon assumptions sure seems the way ahead. At least that's what I'm sticking with.

Thanks for the other links. Very interesting. You'll note the Reid estimate quoted was rather high though, others being from 200bn solar masses upwards, so the 'drop' to estimated 500-1,000bn must be considered relatively. Her method was also one of the 'indirect' ones you decried, but nevertheless worth studying.

.astronomers.find.massive.supply.gas.around.modern.galaxies]

It was under; "Notre Dame astronomers find massive supply of gas around modern galaxies."

Happy new year.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Jim,

And yet more gas further out of course does no harm at all to extinction distance. It also verifies the axiom of my essay, though I only required ions not molecular gases.

Remember it was you who commenced the exchange by claiming that axiomised quantum vacuum medium was just some false claim or misunderstanding not an astronomical finding. You asked for the evidence, but have flatly denied all such findings ever since, which proves my comment on your preference correct.

I'm sorry if you took offence but if we all took offence to apparent truths and rejected requested evidence conflicting with our postulates we'd fast run out of fences!! You do seem exceptionally 'prickly'! I always look for commonality with others not conflict, it's far more rewarding. I thought we'd found some, but your position reverted.

I'll try to make allowance for your sensitivity, but surely actually being visibly even handed in considering evidence, as the scientific method, is the best way to convince others you are being so. I've never seen any reason not to be, and indeed study potential falsifications more than verifications.

Why don't we just agree, that the findings are showing actual 'stuff' of quite adequate density for my thesis if not proven adequate to falsify your gravitational one, which needs higher densities.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author James T. Dwyer replied on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 21:14 GMT
Peter!

It's rude and inappropriate for you to continuously make personal remarks about me. Not only am I not interested in what you think of me, but as a result of those remarks, I have no interest in conversing with you at all.

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT
Jim,

I remind you it was you who claimed my principal axiom was nonsense and suggested I'd pulled it out of thin air, you who just dismiss apparently conflicting evidence, and you who said; "it is you who doggedly pursue your own beliefs". Which is not only quite an insult but entirely baseless.

I'd merely said I accepted in advance from experience that "you may prefer to believe what you wish to", which is often true of many of us and only meant; OK, don't fret, I don't expect you to exactly embrace or accept the announced finding, but here it is for the record to evidence my axiom."

If you are that prickly then you can't expect people not to say so. I note you eschewed my olive branch, so I'll just say as far as I'm concerned I've provided the evidence you asked for and satisfactorily evidenced my axiom.

Peter

report post as inappropriate