Amazingly enough the above article says “galaxy held together by dark matter’ with no mention of gravity!!!
Well, this scientist says our ‘dark matter’ is sticky honey is wrong. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-andromeda-milky-billion-years.html#nwlt
That the dwarf galaxies surrounding the Andromeda and Milky Way are there because they got ripped off during a close pass by both 10 bya without being troubled by sticky dark matter. so this concept of MOND which describes gravity differently in space may be workable.
Wiki description of what dark matter is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Gravity that does not interact with photons ----but yet we have light being bent by YES! by dark matter. Needless to say this creature of fantasy is required: Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang model (from Wiki above). Another conundrum is that globular clusters are supposed not to be dark matter supporters: There are places where dark matter seems to be a small component or totally absent. Globular clusters show little evidence that they contain dark matter,[32] though their orbital interactions with galaxies do show evidence for galactic dark matter.[citation needed] For some time, measurements of the velocity profile of stars seemed to indicate concentration of dark matter in the disk of the Milky Way galaxy. It now appears, however, that the high concentration of baryonic matter in the disk of the galaxy (especially in the interstellar medium) can account for this motion. Galaxy mass profiles are thought to look very different from the light profiles. The typical model for dark matter galaxies is a smooth, spherical distribution in virialized halos. Such would have to be the case to avoid small-scale (stellar) dynamical effects. Recent research reported in January 2006 from the University of Massachusetts Amherst would explain the previously mysterious warp in the disk of the Milky Way by the interaction of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds and the predicted 20 fold increase in mass of the Milky Way taking into account dark matter.[33]
Perhaps this ‘warp’ is due to loopy magnetism?
It seems odd to me that in Wiki redshift quantization is described: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
--cluster around multiples of some particular value. And isn’t this description above --smooth , spherical distributions of halos ---above sort of the same thing?
Wiki description of what dark energy really is:
Repulsive force
Starting in 1998, observations of supernovae in distant galaxies have been interpreted as consistent with a universe whose expansion is accelerating. Subsequent cosmological theorizing has been designed so as to allow for this possible acceleration, nearly always by invoking dark energy, which in its simplest form is just a positive cosmological constant. In general, dark energy is a catch-all term for any hypothesised field with negative pressure, usually with a density that changes as the universe expands.
Very interesting podcast from cbc canada. This show reveals that about 1/2 the dwarf galaxies have been discovered ‘orbiting’ in the plane of Andromeda. Galaxies in orbit! Supposedly can’t happen. Consider that our globular clusters are not orbiting in the plane of the Milky Way but each has its own orbit that passes thru the plane. As for the other 1/2 of dwarf galaxies they are thought to be in a similar Andromeda-style orbit in the plane of the Milky Way but difficult to see due to our position inside the plane.
From Wiki: alternate cosmology:
Consider Arp’s contention as to how galaxies form:
Halton Arp continues to maintain that there are anomalies in his observing of quasars and galaxies that serve as a refutation of the Big Bang. Arp has made observations of correlations between quasars and (relatively) nearby AGN claiming that clusters of quasars have been observed in alignment around AGN cores. Arp believes that quasars originate as very high redshift objects ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies and gradually lose their non-cosmological redshift component as they evolve into galaxies.[4] This stands in stark contradiction to the accepted models of galaxy formation.
Holographic Universe information: http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/
Rat Cell Filamentary Emission
The Rat Cell Dwarf Galaxy I Zw 18 is surrounded by filamentary nebular emissions instead of stars in an extended gas halo.
Dwarf Galaxy of Milky Way and Filamentary Rat Cell :
 * |
Stars all orbit like bees surrounding a bee hive in dwarf galaxies. These peculiar orbits require 90-99% dark matter for missing gravity observations. We only can observe nearby galaxies having dwarf galaxies because they contain as little as a few thousand stars. Dwarfs do not have elliptical shapes like the milky way, but are often irregular shaped filamentary emissions, much like rat cells or other types of cells. End of article.
Since these ‘dwarf galaxies’ have been known since early times, I wonder why they became the particular targets for ‘dark matter/energy?” Is the next claim that the home of ‘mini black holes’ have been located in the center of dwarf galaxies? And then what would the difference be between globular clusters and dwarf galaxies?
Note that globular clusters are much the same, the stars inside are so compacted the night sky would never be dark as seen from a body inside a cluster. What holds globular clusters together? Is is magnetism similar to R Duncan’s loopy magnetism of 10 ^ 13 power Gauss?
Two black holes found in M22 globular cluster using radio not xray.
This presents a problem because gravity again is supposed to be the super glue holding globulars together and finding two gravity attractors in one cluster makes that unfathomable.
From Extreme Cosmos by Bryan Gaensler, PhD.
GRO J 0422+32 is the lightest (stellar) black hole at about 4x mass of Sol with 3x being the proposed limit which scientists theorize have the strongest gravity accruing to lowest mass/smallest size. Page 182-185. Magnetism also increases upon shrinking. Now this concept lies in the idea that the holes continually eat, or merge. If this foundational concept is found to be awry, then current theory has no legs to stand on. I refer you to page 126; “And yet, we consistently find that supermassive black holes all these billions of years ago (back to 10% of the galaxies current age) HAVE VERY SIMILAR MASSES TO THE BLACK HOLES WE SEE TODAY.”
Dwarf galaxy known since 1787: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_185
Wiki hints that globular clusters and dwarf galaxies may not be too different: However, recent conjectures by astronomers suggest that globular clusters and dwarf spheroidals may not be clearly separate and distinct types of objects.[11]
I particularly like the idea of the astronomers Burbidge theory of expanding/collapsing Universe.
It is particularly reprehensible to me that these forward thinkers are to be denied credit for espousing a theory in the face of extreme opposition from the established community.
Wiki seems reluctant to name the founders of the expanding/contracting universe model but not the BB which is credited to George Gammow ,etal. In Wiki alternate cosmological theories are not included on the same site and one must go hunting for the same information. They should be together as they sprang from each other.
From the Wiki page big crunch: Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that is postulated to drive the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.[3]
Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday
In a broad class of dark energy models, the universe may collapse within a finite time t_c. Here we study a representative model of dark energy with a linear potential, V(\phi)=V_0(1+\alpha\phi). This model is the simplest doomsday model, in which the universe collapses rather quickly after it stops expanding. Observational data from type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), cosmic microwave background anisotropy (CMB), and large scale structure (LSS) are complementary in constraining dark energy models. Using the new SN Ia data (Riess sample), the CMB data from WMAP, and the LSS data from 2dF, we find that the collapse time of the universe is t_c > 42 (24) gigayears from today at 68% (95%) confidence.
Now you plainly see why dark matter/energy is so vigorously pursued; without it the acceleration of the universe cannot be explained, and the BB would have to be abandoned in favor of a more sensible solution such as expansion/contraction based on a phase change of HOT AND DENSE EQUALS COLD AND THIN. https://www.llnl.gov/str/Schneider.html
Loopy magnetism: 4.4 *10^13 Gauss may be the answer. http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html#Strong_Magnetic_Fields
Consider: if dead magnetars are magnetic bodies teeming in space, why would they stay single?
Since they are magnetically attractive, could it be that our dwarf galaxies are amalgams of dead magnetars?
From R Duncan Magnetars:
In principle, strong magnetism could make these stars easier to find. Their magnetic fields could sweep up diffuse gas from interstellar space, helping to make dead magnetars glow. This gas-sweeping process is most effective when the star is moving quickly, since more gas is swept up faster. Unfortunately, a fast-moving star soon escapes from the galactic disk, and there is little gas outside it. Taking this factor into account, there is little hope that magnetic gas-sweeping greatly improves the prospects for finding dead magnetars.
How poetic! Globular clusters begin and dwarf galaxies end, courtesy of magnetism.
No comments:
Post a Comment