🧵 Galaxy rotation theory
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 10:46:12 UTC No. 16367817
Outer regions of galaxies rotate too fast to be caused by gravity alone. Also, the incorrect rotation is inconsistent across galaxies (I read a comment somewhere). Duct tape fix: dark matter (conveniently distributed in places where it corrects the observations)
In the past days, I've been thinking a new theory. When you conclude that for the speed of rotation, a galaxy should rip apart, the intuitive answer to that is that there is something holding it together, like a glue. And that's exactly my suggestion. I suggest that there is a new interaction at a distance, that could be called "cosmic drag" or "cosmic viscosity" or something like that. This interaction would be weaker than gravity, making it mostly irrelevant for closer orbiters, but significant at galactic scales where gravity is weak. What the interaction does is, that when two objects are moving in different directions, some of their velocities gets transferred to each other. In other words, if in a galaxy, an object is moving "against the current", over time the motion of the nearby objects moving in the opposite direction would slow it down, despite no collisions.
For galaxies, this would mean that the faster orbiters in the middle would speed up the outer regions, the outer regions would boost even further away regions etc. and like that, the effect would propagate from the center to the outer regions.
Also, to solve the inconsistencies between galaxies, I suggest that the differences are caused by the differences in consistency, like one galaxy having many lighter objects and another galaxy having fewer heavier objects, amounts of gas etc. which would cause the math turn out differently somehow. Just like on smaller scale, fluids have different properties.
There are probably million holes in this theory that I haven't considered but here you go. But basically I suggest some kind of weaker than gravity, relatively close range interaction. The transferring of velocity is just one idea.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:00:16 UTC No. 16367835
where does one find actual data for these things and not just popsci infographics?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:18:35 UTC No. 16367864
>Duct tape fix: dark matter (conveniently distributed in places where it corrects the observations)
Your hypothesis is no better. Instead of matter you invent a new interaction which conveniently works in the way the observations require. Both are ad hoc. On this point alone neither hypothesis is better.
The only way to make progress is to make quantitative predictions for other observations, for example dark matter models are also able to describe the dynamics of galaxy clusters which alternatives fail at. And are dozens of other tests. With a quantitative model one can also see complex a model is in order to match a given dataset. Complexity is usually characterised by the number of parameters needed to fit the data. Without a numerical model that's not clear at all.
>>16367835
http://astroweb.cwru.edu/SPARC/
https://zenodo.org/records/10456320
But more modern papers don't use rotation curves, they fit the kinematics in 3D data. But these are more difficult to work with.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:10:37 UTC No. 16367943
>>16367817
when I think about dark matter, I always think about it as a counter player of heisenbergs uncertainty.
whether its true or not, it just doesnt seem to me to be a coincidence.
on a small scale, it is usually an inaccuracy in the energy in the observations.
so why not calling the big scale deviations a mass uncertainty.
of course, mass uncertainty does not appear to fluctuate over time, but this might be more for a problem of our perception (and our life span).
the big is frozen in time, the small is constantly changing.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:19:41 UTC No. 16367959
Why do idiots think galaxy rotation curves are the only reason we think dark matter exists? There are about 6 other vastly differing observations that also have to be explained. Dark matter fits them all.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:36:11 UTC No. 16367985
>>16367959
is there a theory about the local spots of dark matter?
Im talking about those regions in space where it seems to be so concentrated.
some galaxy cluster seem to have plenty while others dont have it that way.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:47:04 UTC No. 16367996
>>16367817
>I've been thinking a new theory
Your theory isn't new, it's called MOND. You think no one else ever thought hey, maybe there's an extra force at long distances?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:51:11 UTC No. 16368003
>>16367985
All galaxy clusters have a lot of it. Galaxies are much more variable that is explained in the range of efficiency that galaxies are able to form stars and retain gas. Some low galaxies can form stars and then eject their gas with supernova feedback. Secondly you can have situations when the dark matter or normal matter is stripped out preferentially, and you end up with more or less DM than the normal ratio. Massive galaxy clusters are much more consistent, they are sufficiently massive that very little can escape the cluster. So the ratio of normal matter to DM is pretty consistent.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:57:49 UTC No. 16368011
>>16367959
>Dark matter fits them all.
Just the typical fraud / delusion / idiotism of science frauds. Why not name it a field, or an magnetic interference never occurs near suns like the earth. Or a creator. It's all the same, Being Honest means: we want money for (know) nothing.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:01:26 UTC No. 16368019
>>16368003
so there are no dark matter 'hot spots' where we dont see luminous matter?
I somehow thought that I had read or seen something before that made me doubt this.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:38:48 UTC No. 16368077
>>16368011
>Why not name it a field, or an magnetic interference never occurs near suns like the earth.
Because dark matter is a specific hypothesis where the cause of the effects is non-visible matter.
>>16368019
Not really no. There are some galaxies which are very dominated by DM. But you need some way to see them. Only small dark matter halos could form without any luminous matter. There are some attempts to find them, via a few methods like gravitational lensing and distrubances.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:39:35 UTC No. 16368078
3...
2...
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:45:07 UTC No. 16368088
>>16367817
>Outer regions of galaxies rotate too fast to be caused by gravity alone.
Correct, what you're observing is electromagnetic distortion caused by gravity
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 14:11:18 UTC No. 16368137
>>16368077
>Only small dark matter halos could form without any luminous matter.
this would then possibly be the counterpart to placks constant.
some background mass uncertainty.
I know this is weird. :)
for some time now, I have been working theoretically with the concept of volume in connection with space-time.
>GRT makes volume 'vanish' over time in our planetm, in all stars etc. dark enery 'creates' somehow. volume seem to be not much.
>if you look closely nothing is empty. negetive pressre etc. weird, volume might really be virtual.
I also ask myself things like
>is there really more than one black hole? isnt a singularity itself as a limit value not a point (or area) outside space-time and a distinction would be inappropriate?
>can this lead to a better understanding in connection with the big bang?
>what exatcly is scale? mathematically speaking, space-time is three-dimensional.
>but matter has given it a strange additional dimension, connected to time. scaling/zooming doesnt change things to a math dot but surely does to matter.
>what am I speaking of? the physical forces rely on certain distances. you only shift the forces that are in charge by scaling. so it IS a player.
to adress some.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 14:47:38 UTC No. 16368182
>>16368137
to add another wild theory.
what if the scale in space-time reconnects 'behind' the interaction boundaries (singularity and plank constant) into sort of a ring?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 14:59:09 UTC No. 16368199
>>16367817
There is already a gravitational drag from interactions between stars (look up Chandrasekhar friction), but it's not remotely enough to account for what we're observing.
There either has to be more mass (in some form or forms), or we're underestimating the curvature of spacetime for the mass distribution in our galaxy, or there's something wrong with our models for gravity at that scale.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:05:23 UTC No. 16368212
>>16368199
>or there's something wrong with our models for gravity at that scale.
This seems most likely. The gravitational "constant" is only known to around 4 significant digits, while many other physical constants are known to 7+.
Considering what an obvious target this is, has anyone modelled what the theoretical values of G would have to be to account for differences in the theoretical and observed rotation curves, within the bounds of currently accepted values?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:34:46 UTC No. 16368266
>>16368212
Just changing G doesn't work. The issue is that the dynamics matches expectations in the inner parts of galaxies. But not on the outside. Just scaling G would scale the visible expectation curve up or down. It wouldn't simultaneously fit the inside and outside.
Also to do this you are looking at changing G by a factor of 4 to 5, many orders of magnitude larger than the current uncertainty.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:54:13 UTC No. 16368303
>>16368266
>Also to do this you are looking at changing G by a factor of 4 to 5, many orders of magnitude larger than the current uncertainty.
Correct, yes. The current uncertainty only pertains to values measured on Earth, and is completely irrelevant on a galactic scale.
>Just scaling G would scale the visible expectation curve up or down. It wouldn't simultaneously fit the inside and outside.
That's not what I'm proposing. The implication here is that G may not actually be constant, and may be a function of stellar density at the galactic scale. Simply calculate what G would have to be at different points in space to account for the measured values, and plot their distribution.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 16:25:43 UTC No. 16368348
>>16368303
>The implication here is that G may not actually be constant, and may be a function of stellar density at the galactic scale. Simply calculate what G would have to be at different points in space to account for the measured values, and plot their distribution.
Making it depend on density doesn't work because the Sun is at a radius where the Milky Way rotation curve requires dark matter. So G should be modified here, but it's not in the solar system. Density dependence doesn't work, it would have to be scale dependence. But there is nothing simple about such models, as there are basically infinite functual forms.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 18:11:37 UTC No. 16368468
>>16367817
Forget about horror movies. This is the kind of shit that keeps me up at night.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 18:18:37 UTC No. 16368476
>95% of the universe needs to be imaginary in order to justify my know-it-allism.
>the dumb formulas I memorized out of a book don't add up without muh derp matter
lmao they're not even your formulas. are you really so convinced of your own intellectual weakness that you leap to the conclusion that memorizing other people's formulas out of a textbook is the highest level of intellectual achievement possible for you?
I guess that would explain why midwits are all so certain derp matter is real