David Levy

As I have already stated, the ratio between the Black hole core mass and the whole mass in the Milky Way is 4 to one million. Therefore, it is a ratio of 1 to 250,000. This is similar to the ratio between the Earth and Sun which is 1 to 330,000. So, is it possible that the Sun will rotate around the Earth? Even if we consider the bulge as symmetric spherical cluster of objects, it still has significantly less mass that the whole mass in the arms. Please be aware that the dark matter was needed due to the missing mass at the center of the galaxy. I just would like to highlight that there might be more mass in the B.H than our expectation. Therefore, this could minimize our need for dark matter.

Thanks One last issue with regards to spiral galaxy; In all the articles which you have delivered, I couldn't find any information about the spiral galaxy structure. Please advice how the science explains the different activity and rotation curve at each segment - Bulge, spiral arms and Hallo.

Well, I do not offer a solution. I just highlight that we must look on all aspects of spiral galaxy as one set. If dark energy is using for the rotation curves, then we should consider its effect on the spiral arm shape. same issue with the density wave.

Let me start with the following example: If someone tells his doctor that he has headache, he can't see well and he has some other problems. What it is expected from the doctor? Give his patient one medicine for each problem? Or find the correlations between all the problems? Same issue with science; Scientists are the doctors for the universe. They have got an input of several phenomenons on the same body – spiral galaxy. They shouldn't try to find a medicine to each phenomenon. They must find the correlation between all of those phenomenons. Based on that, they might find the key to the Spiral galaxy enigma. Somehow, our scientists decided that there is no correlation between all phenomenons in spiral galaxy. I'm quite sure that for doctors, this approch should be considered as a severe mistake. In spiral galaxy there are several aspects: Rotation curve, structure, shape, activity… For example – I couldn't find any explanation for the structure of spiral galaxy. Why spiral galaxy has three sections (Bulge, Spiral arms, Hallo). Is there a rotation curve problem in all the sections? Why in each section there is different activity? Never the less, our scientists decided to do the following: The density wave theory – will be used for the shape of spiral arms. The dark energy – will be used for the rotation curve velocity. And all the other aspects of spiral galaxy should be ignored. Somehow, they do not see the correlation between all the aspects. In one hand you speak about smaller dust, while in the other hand you use it for stars. Are you sure that it's accepted? how this formula helps us with the stracture, shape, velocity.. of the spiral galaxy? Yes and no. If you ignore the major effect of spiral arm – than yes, it won't work. However, if you set Newton low on spiral arms – you will see how easy it fits. Based on this approach it should give an answer to all the aspects of spiral galaxy. There is no need to look for different "medicine" to each aspect. Just one and single source of explanation to everything! Somehow it seems that you mismatch between dust/particles/zero mass and real mass/stars. I'm not sure that it is feasible to use the same assumption for both. In any case, in your explanation you have used three formulas. However, you didn't mention even one time the density wave theory. So, I'm not sure that those formulas can be considered as an evidence for the density wave theory. You didn't use any other real evidence to proof the theory. Remember – Math by itself is not evidence. I also couldn't see any real effect of those formulas on spiral galaxy. There is no clear math calculation for spiral structure, gravity power, velocity and so on.

O.K. With 50 textbooks you should have full Knowledge about this theory. Therefore, I have a simple request from you. Let's assume that none of us (in this forum) has any idea about the density wave theory. You have just found this great theory. Let's assume that you have already presented your idea. Now, you are requested by swansont to proof your theory. Without a proof (based on this forum rolls) your idea will be moved to speculation or even to trash. So please go a head and try to introduce your evidences. Please - it is forbidden to use Elite Scientists name as evidence. However, you can use their evidences as yours. Good Luck

There is no need for 100%. But there is a big difference between 0% and 100%. The definition should highlight our confidence in this thesis. For example, Newton gravity Theory is a proved theory, although it doesn't cover all the possibilities. In some cases the GR theory is needed (which could be considered as a subset of Newton theory). Therefore, although Newton theory doesn't cover all the cases by 100%, we know for sure that it is a proved theory. Hence, there is no need for alternative theory for Newton. So, if we call Newton as a "Theory" and we know that this is a proved theory, we must find a different definition for any thesis which isn't fully confirmed yet. It is quite confusing that we use the same definition for different confidence level of thesis. Hence, scientists should use a definition which must be correlated with their confidence level. I have used the density wave theory as an example for a proved or unproved thesis. Therefore, I had no intention to dig in this specific issue. However, there might be a difference between the influence and the nature of how various mass move at each system. For example: Rotation velocity. We know that the sun rotation velocity is high above the expected one from Newton law. Is it the same condition is Saturn ring? Actually, it should be quite easy for us to monitor the velocities of the main objects at this ring. If we could find that the velocities are significantly high and we see similar phenomenon as the rotation curve in spiral galaxy – then we can say clearly that we have some similarity. But currently, I see significant different. The structure of spiral galaxy is totally different from Saturn ring as follow: Sections – In Saturn we see only two sections – Star and rings. In spiral galaxy there are three sections – Bulge, Arms and Hallo. Mass Dispersion - In Saturn the main mass is located in Saturn, while is spiral galaxy most of the mass is located in the spiral arms. Ring shape – In Saturn all the rings are very thin. In spiral galaxy, there are two sections – Thick arms (close to the center) and thin arms (further from the center). I assume that there are more differences. But this is just a brief highlight of some of them. With regards to the picture of the spiral section in Saturn -Why we only see the spiral behavior in a very narrow band in one of the rings? -How many pictures of this section do we have? Did we try to get pictures at different years and locations? (Just figure out what might be the impact if in the next picture we will not find this spiral phenomenon is Saturn ring.)

Thanks I thought that an unproved theory is Hypothesis. Now we might have some other definitions: good theory, Bad theory and even modeling theory. Therefore, we should set one clear definition for any theory. Those definitions must be clear. With regards to the Density Wave Theory It is stated: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theor "The theory has also been successfully applied to Saturn's rings" They didn’t claim that it had been successfully applied to some sort of spiral galaxy. Saturn ring isn't spiral galaxy. So what does it mean? Why the use it as some kind of approval? They must apply it on a spiral galaxy. The "best fit" definition is not good enough. It actually gives us an indication that there might be some other alternative for this theory. For example: http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm "Another popular theory uses the shock waves from supernova explosions to shape the spiral pattern." If the "Density wave" is good theory, while the "shock waves" is a bad theory, then it must be clear by the definition In anyway, those two theories should be under "unproved theory" definition. (Which means – Hypothesis)

Density wave theory - Is it a proved theory or hypothesis? Sure. It's not good or bad. It's a proved theory or unproved. In any case, I had an impression that math by itself is not an evidence.

What about the density wave theory?

An "unproved theory" is a hypothesis Dark matter Theory and Dark energy Theory are hypotheses. What are the other cosmological theories which could be consider as Hypotheses?

Perfect Can you please update the whole list? Thanks Great explanation

I like the following explanation: However, the current definition of theory is quite misleading. We have to distinguish between a true theory and unproved theory. For example Newton theory is a true theory. It is fully proved by evidences. Some more examples of true theories: 1. General Relativity 2.Special Relativity 3.Heliocentrism However, the following theories are not fully proved. Dark energy theory, Dark matter theory. Therefore, for those theses we shouldn't use the definition - "theory".

Observations and evidence O.K. Hypothesis Agree. Why a mathematical is a mandatory requested for Hypothesis? I had the impression that mathematical is an option. However, how shall we call a hypothesis without math? Why? Example – Do you remember the idea that the moon was considered as a cheese in the past? So, at that time, this idea couldn't be contradicted by any evidence. Therefore, based on this approach, the moon must be made of cheese… Please try to find better description. Theory Why close to "true". It must be true! Although, we should have the flexibility to set minor adaptation in the future... I would say: "A hypothesis is initially based on observation and evidence. However, Different evidence is needed to confirm a hypothesis to theory." Why do we need to reconfirm a theory? I had an impression that Theory is a confirmed Hypothesis.

I'm not sure that I fully understand the basic Concepts of modern science. Therefore, Please advice if you agree with the following descriptions:. Observation: Whatever we see. For example we see redshift of farthest galaxies. Evidence: a direct outcome from this observation that had been proved by confirmed theory or physics law. For example based on the redshift observation and Doppler Effect we know for sure that all the farther galaxies accelerating from us. Therefore, this is evidence. Theory: Any unconfirmed/unproved Idea or Speculation which can give a feasible explanation/ solution for that observation or evidence. Confirmed Theory: A theory which had been fully confirmed. However, it is forbidden to use the same original evidence for confirmation. Different evidence or a fully proved lab test is needed to confirm a theory. No Math: It is also forbidden to confirm theory by Math. (unless it is based on a proven physics law or confirmed theory.) For example It is perfectly O.K. to develop a formula in order to get a theory of the dark energy in the universe, but this math can't be used as an approval for that theory. Hypothesis: any theory which had been accepted by our elite scientists. For example Dark energy. Argument: any idea or speculation which had been offered by any one of us. Illogical argument: Any unrealistic argument which had been disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. Trash must be the only place for those arguments Logical argument: Any argument which can't be disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. It is forbidden to disapprove an argument by Hypothesis. Physics law: Fully confirmed thesis. However, we must use this law for its specific scale. For example Newton law is applicable for objects but not for particles.

Yes, the observation is clear. Dark energy is currently considered as a feasible solution for this observation. However, without a real evidence, the dark energy will remain under hypothesis solution.

Sorry, a new theory is not relevant to the current theory. There is no need to offer any alternative to the current theory. Each theory must be verified by itself. Let me give you an example: In the past it was believed that the moon is made out of cheese. At that time, if someone didn't agree with this mainstream, he had to offer better alternative and prove it. So, assuming that you are living at that time; What kind of alternative can you offer and how can you prove your new theory? Please remember: There was no telescope at that time. If you couldn't prove your new theory, they are going to trash your idea with your life. However, in our days, we are so lucky. If you can't prove your theory, they will only trash your idea. Therefore, no one at our time needs to offer better alternative in order to disqualify the current mean stream concept. And actually, why shall we disqualify any current theory? We just need to categorize correctly each theory. Hence, the Dark energy and Dark matter are categorized under Hypothesis. That doesn't mean that those theories are incorrect. It just means that currently, those are available theories, but we have no real evidence to prove them. What's wrong with that? With regards to your approval, please advice if I understand you correctly: The theory of dark energy had been emerged due to the redshift verification of the farthest galaxies. And, we prove the dark energy by ---- redshift of the farthest galaxies. So, if someone has a headache, we can claim that he has a dark disease. In the same token, we can prove this disease by its headache. Agree? I assume that some of us might have a real headache now…

Agree. So, Dark energy is under hypotheses category. It might be another explanation or different point of view of what we see. This explanation should lead us to new hypothesis. However, I fully agree that under any condition – it must be tested and fully proved by real evidences.

Thanks So, with regards to the "dunno" and mutual understanding. Shall we agree that dark energy is a theory? Shall we agree that there might be some other explanation for what we see?

Yes, that is correct. No, this issue had been confirmed. The rate of expansion is accelerating. There is no need for further evidence to confirm this issue. Sorry, we do not have to explain the dark energy!!! The dark energy is needed to explain why the rate of expansion is accelerating. However, there might be some other explanations for that issue. Currently, the science estimates that dark energy is the preferable solution for this accelaration. Unfortunately, so far there is no evidence to confirm the existence of dark energy. Therefore, there is a chance that dark energy isn't the correct answer for what we see. I have got the impression that we call it dark energy becouse we really don't know what is it. If our scientists knew what it is than there is no need for the word dark. They could call it transient gravity", "reversible force" or even "unbalance power". Therefore, as long as we have no evidence for it, and as long as we have no clue what is it, we will call it dark energy… It's coffee. Did you ever try to set a cup of coffee in the microwave? If you didn't – please don't try it now. Unless, you have a free day to clean your microwave…

No, I disagree. We just know for sure that the level had been increased by 20%. This is the only evidence which we know! There is no evidence that something had beed added to the cup of coffee. Please be aware that by a critical temperature, we should get the same effect. Sure, but so far we have no real capability to determine what is it. As stated by Mordred - a probe is needed. Unfortunately, so far we couldn't get real evidence from our Hubble telescope probe. Therefore, any prediction or hypotheses might be correct or incorrect.

Perfect!!! Yes, you have number of hypotheses!!! It could be dark energy, black energy, dark matter, black matter or something else like dark sugar. Now, let's do research: For Probe – Use Hubble telescope. So, do you see the dark energy – No. Do you see the black energy – No. Do you see the dark matter – No. Do you see the black matter – No. So, what does it mean? Is there any chance that it is something else (Dark sugar...)?

I like this indirect evidence. Let's use your example about the rock in a cup. However, instead of water let's use a cup of coffee. So, if we add a rock the level rises. If we add a metal the level rises. If we add sugar, salt or even poo the level rises. If we set it at the microwave (without adding any ingredient), at critical temperature, the level rises. So, if you see the cup with level increase of 20%, are you sure that you will know what kind of ingredient had been added? If you know, then we can trust any indirect evidence.

Sorry, based on the message from Hubble site, it is clear that they didn't find any real sign for Dark energy. It is stated that they have "no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe". It means that they have no idea what makes up the dark energy. Hence, so far they couldn't find any evidence for dark energy! It is stated: "Dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the universe". Therefore, there is no direct way to detect dark matter and dark energy. It is also stated: "It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean.". Therefore, they couldn't find any evidence for dark energy or dark matter after exploring the whole Universe. Are you sure that this is not the correct message? Would you kindly explain why do you think that those messages are actually a confirmation for the existence of dark energy?

In our days, all the information is available at the web. With regards to the 74% of the dark energy: Please see again the valuable information from Hubblesite: By: http://hubblesite.or...dark_energy.php "It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean." Based on this massage, it's quite clear that there is no evidence for the 74% of the dark energy! . It isn't that I'm saying what I think I know. I'm saying what Hubble site knows. Or maybe I just didn't fully understand their description. However, if I did understand correctly this description, do you think that there is a severe error at Hubble site? Do we have to believe that they have no clue about what they are saying?

Please see roll no. 1 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31045-why-has-my-post-been-moved-to-speculations/ It is stated: "No maths. Science requires specific predictions to be made so that a theory may be tested and falsified if it is wrong. Work that needs but lacks a legitimate mathematical framework is almost certain to be moved".