Update stady state Theory

[Klaynos]

it's the same if you do it with the Earth's core.

 

Do you agree ?

 

I know that the Solar system is not the best example ; because in addition to the kinetic, the earth orbit around the sun, and the Solar system around into the Galaxy.

 

The more important is this story of the main expansion we follow.

 

I'm not sure I follow you, where would the splitting come in for the solar system?

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

I'm not sure I follow you, where would the splitting come in for the solar system?

 

First answer is Sun.

(evident)

 

But the real forces come from the heart of the galaxy.

 

So ?

[Klaynos]

First answer is Sun.

(evident)

 

But the real forces come from the heart of the galaxy.

 

So ?

 

Planets form from the disk that forms around new stars, no splitting.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Planets form from the disk that forms around new stars, no splitting.

 

I know that.

 

But we talking about universe, and not How the earth been formed.

 

kind the asteroid belt ...

Edited November 20, 2012 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[Klaynos]

I know that.

 

But we talking about universe, and not How the earth been formed.

 

kind the asteroid belt ...

 

Then I still do not follow your point.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Then I still do not follow your point.

Ok, no worries.

Have a Nice Day.

[ACG52]

Is it time for this thread to hit the trash?

[David Levy]

Ok, no worries.

Have a Nice Day.

 

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU, please set your idea in its own thread.

 

Is it time for this thread to hit the trash?

 

 

It is the time for you to stop immediately your constant negative interrupt!!!

Edited November 21, 2012 by David Levy

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU, please set your idea in its own thread.

Ok

[David Levy]

Ok

 

Hi Arnaud

 

 

Let's make it clear.

 

I realy want to get further info on your idea.

 

Please open a new thread or send me an email.

 

Please also feel free to add your coments about the Updated Steady state theory.

 

 

 

Thanks

 

I'd go as far as to say the 'prediction' given that there are mother galaxies that spin away from each other is easily shown to be false as if you split something split it again and again you'll soon found that loads are heading towards the initial position.

 

Hi Klaynos

 

 

I have no Idea about the 'prediction' Theory.

 

However, Based on the Updated Steady state theory, The Daughter Galaxy migrates away from the Mother Galaxy.

 

My speculation is that M33 is a Daughter Galaxy of Andromeda.

 

So far I couldn't find info about the relative speed between those two Galaxies.

Edited November 21, 2012 by David Levy

[Klaynos]

 

Hi Klaynos

 

 

I have no Idea about the 'prediction' Theory.

 

However, Based on the Updated Steady state theory, The Daughter Galaxy migrates away from the Mother Galaxy.

 

My speculation is that M33 is a Daughter Galaxy of Andromeda.

 

So far I couldn't find info about the relative speed between those two Galaxies.

 

You are the one who claims you have a theory, therefore you must have predictions, with maths, where are they? You've made a statement, if you want to compare it with reality you not to quantify it, describe mathematically the process and then compare that with what can be measured, else you are not doing science.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Hi Arnaud

Let's make it clear.

I realy want to get further info on your idea.

Please open a new thread or send me an email.

Please also feel free to add your coments about the Updated Steady state theory.

Thanks

Hello David,

yes, i haven't grasped it. But I must first work on the translation before proceeding.

I only have two or three links in French until. We keep abreast.

Cordially.

 

http://www.sur-la-toile.com/discussion-238257-150-Le-big-bang-peut-il-reculer-...html

 

Dirac Sea :

http://www.sur-la-toile.com/discussion-225671-50-E%253Dmc%25B2.html

[PeterJ]

Makes sense to me, David, in an 'in principle' kind of way, but unfortunately I'm not a physicist.

 

If two galaxies are moving towards each other but are still far enough apart for expansion to modify their closing speed, then shouldn't these galaxies you mention be accelerating towards each other? (As expansion will play an ever decreasing role with diminishing distance). Do we know whether their closing speed is constant or accelerating? Pardon me if the question is misguided.

[David Levy]

If two galaxies are moving towards each other but are still far enough apart for expansion to modify their closing speed, then shouldn't these galaxies you mention be accelerating towards each other? (As expansion will play an ever decreasing role with diminishing distance). Do we know whether their closing speed is constant or accelerating? Pardon me if the question is misguided.

 

Thanks Peter.

 

Yes, good questions.

 

however, I assume that NASA should be the main contact for those kind of data request.

Edited November 26, 2012 by David Levy

[David Levy]

A message from NASA:

 

"Hubble Findings Cast Doubt On Dark Matter Theories"

 

http://www.redorbit....atter-theories/

 

 

Please also see:

 

"For the first time, the results show that WIMP candidates within a specific range of masses and interaction rates cannot be dark matter. A paper detailing these results appeared in the Dec. 9, 2011, issue of Physical Review Letters".

 

http://www.nasa.gov/...r-insights.html

 

 

 

Those evidences give a significant proof for the Updated steady state theory!!!

 

In the steady state theory, there is no need for Dark Matter!!!

Edited November 28, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

You didn't bother to read the articles, did you?

 

Because the first says that they have found a large concentration of Dark Matter, but it's not behaving as the theories predict, and the second simply ruled out specific WIMPs.

 

Both articles support Dark Matter.

[David Levy]

It's seems that you do not even try to get the conclusion of those articles.

 

As usual, you are absolutely locked in you prejudice,therefore, you can't look behind your nose.

 

The main Idea is that the dark matter is not present where the science had expected…

 

So, I will try to help you by one more article as follow:

 

Mysterious Dark Matter Becomes More Mysterious

 

http://www.sciencefo..._40#entry715604

 

"The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see —stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun," team leader Christian MoniBidin said in a press release. "But this leaves no room for the extra material— dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"

 

"Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for,"Moni Bidin said. "So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

 

Please let me know if you still have Difficulties in understanding

 

Edited November 29, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

And it seems you don't bother to read them. No surprise there.

[David Levy]

You must get professional support for improving your difficulties in understanding

 

Edited November 29, 2012 by David Levy

[Spyman]

It's seems that you do not even try to get the conclusion of those articles.

 

As usual, you are absolutely locked in you prejudice,therefore, you can't look behind your nose.

 

The main Idea is that the dark matter is not present where the science had expected…

 

So, I will try to help you by one more article as follow:

 

Mysterious Dark Matter Becomes More Mysterious

 

http://www.sciencefo..._40#entry715604

 

"The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see —stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun," team leader Christian MoniBidin said in a press release. "But this leaves no room for the extra material— dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"

 

"Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for,"Moni Bidin said. "So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

 

Please let me know if you still have Difficulties in understanding

 

Bidin's results is refuted, the new interpretation is that it is "the most robust direct measurement of the local dark-matter density to date".

 

 

 

On the local dark matter density

 

Authors: Jo Bovy, Scott Tremaine (IAS)

(Submitted on 17 May 2012 (v1), last revised 29 Jun 2012 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: An analysis of the kinematics of 412 stars at 1-4 kpc from the Galactic mid-plane by Moni Bidin et al. (2012) has claimed to derive a local density of dark matter that is an order of magnitude below standard expectations. We show that this result is incorrect and that it arises from the assumption that the mean azimuthal velocity of the stellar tracers is independent of Galactocentric radius at all heights. We substitute the assumption, supported by data, that the circular speed is independent of radius in the mid-plane. We demonstrate that the assumption of constant mean azimuthal velocity is implausible by showing that it requires the circular velocity to drop more steeply than allowed by any plausible mass model, with or without dark matter, at large heights above the mid-plane. Using the approximation that the circular velocity curve is flat in the mid-plane, we find that the data imply a local dark-matter density of 0.008 +/- 0.003 Msun/pc^3 = 0.3 +/- 0.1 GeV/cm3, fully consistent with standard estimates of this quantity. This is the most robust direct measurement of the local dark-matter density to date.

Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033v2