Dark Matter? get over it!

[beejewel]

Everyone is now familiar with the problem of galaxy rotation curves, and how it has given rise to speculations about galaxies containing dark matter. The problem was first announced by American astronomers Vera Rubin and Kent Ford in 1975, who collaborated to show that galaxies displayed a flat rotation curve and did not exhibit the expected Keplerian motion.

Unable to explain such flat rotation curves, theoreticians proposed that there had to be additional matter to what was visible in the galaxy in order to account for the flat rotation curve, and it was coined "dark matter".

Keplerian orbital velocity follows the function;

 

[latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}[/latex]

 

We see when plotting the keplerian function for increasing radius, we get a velocity curve with exponential decay as in the yellow scetch below.

 

galaxy rotation curve

Keplers law describes planetary motions with great accuracy, but somehow fails to describe orbital velocities of stars in galaxies, why is this?

Confident in Ground Potential being able to solve this problem, I started thinking about it and soon realised how a flat rotation curve was not an anomaly, rather it was Keplers law which was anomalous.

According to GP theory, orbiting bodies ought to increase velocity with increasing radius, because Δv is proportional to Δϕ so if GP theory is correct, then God help Kepler.

It appears Kepler made one rather silly assumption, namely that planets move forward in time which turns out to be wrong.

If we take the sun to be our reference point, the arrow of time points towards the centre of gravity i.e. the past is radially outwards, therefore an observer on the Sun is temporally ahead of the planets which indeed move backwards relative to the sun, so the velocities are consequently negative. this means the negative velocity differences between the planets sum up thereby speeding up with increasing radius.

 

 

Solar System Planet Velocities [edited 1/4/2015]

 

In the table above we can see how the forward velocity assumption differs from the retro temporal motion clearly changing the velocity curve as seen in the chart below.

Solar system velocity curve [edited 1/4/2015]

 

[edits: I realised after posting this that the original plot was wrong. The formula for the backwards velocity should be the backwards velocity of the first planet plus the difference in velocity between the first planet and the next planet, summing the differences gives an ever increasing retro velocity - Sorry about the confusion]

It should be noted that I have deliberately plotted the rotation curve in the positive quadrant to show the similarity between my plot and those measured by astronomers, like this one below. It should however appear in the bottom quadrant of the graph.

M33 Galaxy

The conclusion is, when we observe distant galaxies we are looking into the past i.e we are temporally ahead of the observed galaxies, and therefore observe the rotation curve as it would be seen from the perspective of the galactic center, and we see the negative rotation curve as in the example above.

According to Ground Potential theory there is no need to postulate any additional dark matter in order to explain these galaxy rotation curves, they appear excactly as I believe they should.

Steven

Edited April 1, 2015 by beejewel

[pavelcherepan]

Could you show the formula that you used to calculate velocities in the table?

[beejewel]

Could you show the formula that you used to calculate velocities in the table?

 

 

It's the velocity (negative) of the first planet, plus the difference in velocity between the first planet and the next etc..

 

v = -(velocity of first planet) + ((velocity of next planet) - (velocity of first planet))

 

 

It works out like this because each planet is moving backwards at an ever increasing velocity, this comes about because the gravitational potential falls at the rate of [latex] \frac{1}{r^2} [/latex]

 

In ground Potential theory it is simple to express like this.

 

[latex] \Delta v= c * (\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi}) [/latex]

 

Where [latex] \phi [/latex] is the surface potential of the planet and [latex] \Phi [/latex] is the surface potential of the proton.

 

Let me think for a moment about how to write this formula with G and M

 

Steven

Edited April 1, 2015 by beejewel

[Sensei]

If we have planet with distance from the Sun like Earth d=150 mln km
and it's pretty circle like orbit,
then circumference (=path taken in one year) is roughly 2*PI*r (pretty basic math)

2*PI*150*10^6 / 365.25 / 24 / 3600 = 29.86 km/s

 

So if we reverse it, and multiply velocity * time, we can get location of planet in future.

 

How are you going to get 0.94 bln km distance Earth is doing every year, if its velocity is 70 km/s, not 29-30 km/s.. ?

 

Couple notes:

- distance from the Sun to object varies with time. The closest distance and farthest distances are called perihelion and aphelion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_and_aphelion

- velocity of object varies with time.

So distances and velocities (the real one) that you have in table in 1st post, are just averages!

 

Year ago I made application which is generating solar system

 

It's using perihelion, aphelion, velocity, orbital inclination..

Knowing these data and entering to app we can predict where each planet will be in a few minutes, few hours, days and years or million years in future.

Show how you're predicting where each planet will be in future using yours data.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Sensei

[CasualKilla]

I am just adding some mild skepticism, but havn't galaxys been simulated and showed Keplerian behavior, without presence of added mass?

[Strange]

You appear to be comparing the caculated velocities of planets in the solar system with the rotation curves for a galaxy. There are a number of problems with this:

 

1. You don't say where all the numbers in the table come from

 

2. The expected velocities for planets orbiting a single point mass are completely different from those for gas and stars in a galaxy

 

3. Kepler's Law does not apply to galaxies. Dark matter does not affect the movement of planets.

 

4. You are not doing any sort of quantitative analysis, just showing two curves which look vaguely similar in shape.

 

5. Your justification appears to be that we are seeing galaxies in the past; but the same observations apply to our own galaxy, which is not in the past.

 

6. Kepler's law can be derived from Newton's law of gravitation. So if you are claiming Kepler's law is wrong then you are saying the Newtons law is wrong. So why does it appear to work to predict the velocities of planets?

 

7. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter?

 

8. How do you account for the fact that the observed amount of dark matter is required for formation of the large scale structure of the universe?

 

9. How do you account for the velocities of galaxies in clusters, which are not orbiting a single central point?

 

10. Your claimed mechanism ("the arrow of time points towards the centre of gravity i.e. the past is radially outwards") is meaningless.

 

But apart from that ... +1 for attempting to quantify your theory. Even if the numbers are utterly irrelevant. So -1 for numerology.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations - please take a moment to read the specific rules and guidelines for this forum

 

[CasualKilla]

Just post all the information you can or you feel comfortable with. People here are open to new ideas, but you will need to substantiate them with data.

[swansont]

If we take the sun to be our reference point, the arrow of time points towards the centre of gravity i.e. the past is radially outwards, therefore an observer on the Sun is temporally ahead of the planets which indeed move backwards relative to the sun, so the velocities are consequently negative. this means the negative velocity differences between the planets sum up thereby speeding up with increasing radius.

 

 

I have no idea what this means. Arrow of time directed at the sun? Time is moving backwards on planets? Seriously?

[ajb]

I have no idea what this means. Arrow of time directed at the sun? Time is moving backwards on planets? Seriously?

The date this was posted rings alarm bells.

[swansont]

The date this was posted rings alarm bells.

 

If it was a new poster with no track record, perhaps.

[beejewel]

 

 

How are you going to get 0.94 bln km distance Earth is doing every year, if its velocity is 70 km/s, not 29-30 km/s.. ?

 

 

Thanks for feedback, there is no reference points in space, so the only real velocity is that between an observer and a moving body or bodies, therefore it makes little sense to calculate a velocity of a body based on how long it takes to circle a third body. As far as we the observers go, the earth is indeed at rest.

 

Great video, you would see what I mean if you changed the animation so mercury stood still, this would give the effect of all the other planets moving backwards

 

 

Strange

1. You don't say where all the numbers in the table come from

2. The expected velocities for planets orbiting a single point mass are completely different from those for gas and stars in a galaxy

3. Kepler's Law does not apply to galaxies. Dark matter does not affect the movement of planets.

4. You are not doing any sort of quantitative analysis, just showing two curves which look vaguely similar in shape.

5. Your justification appears to be that we are seeing galaxies in the past; but the same observations apply to our own galaxy, which is not in the past.

6. Kepler's law can be derived from Newton's law of gravitation. So if you are claiming Kepler's law is wrong then you are saying the Newtons law is wrong. So why does it appear to work to predict the velocities of planets?

7. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter?

8. How do you account for the fact that the observed amount of dark matter is required for formation of the large scale structure of the universe?

9. How do you account for the velocities of galaxies in clusters, which are not orbiting a single central point?

10. Your claimed mechanism ("the arrow of time points towards the centre of gravity i.e. the past is radially outwards") is meaningless.

1. Planet Radii came from Wiki (roughly averaged) kepler velocity calculated

2. Most likely yes, but velocity should not fall with increasing potential

3. that's my point dark matter is a fiction of the imagination, introduced to fix a bad theory

4. Simply pointing out that Keplers interpretation is incorrectly referenced.

5. Looking into the distant past causes a Lorenzian frame rotation

6. Keplers law describes what we see when we imagine planets moving forward, close your eyes for a minute and try to imagine the planets orbiting backwards, pluto leads the pack (its all in the mind)

7. Again dark matter doesn't exist in significant quantities.

8. Speculation

9. outside the scope of my theory

10. An apple falling from a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future ..

 

 

 

I have no idea what this means. Arrow of time directed at the sun? Time is moving backwards on planets? Seriously?

 

Been through this before Swanson, the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, looking up into space is the same as looking back in time, looking inwards is somewhat harder, so we have to imagine how it would be like looking inwards,

 

All I am saying here is that the velocity of the planets have a negative sign in front, ie they are moving away from you the observer, i.e. not towards you. This is further evidensed by the fact that to get a rocket into orbit it must by definition travel away from you i.e. negative velocity... Further evidense is that in order to move your rocket from a low orbit to a higher orbit, you need to add energy, once again increase its negative velocity, not decrease it.

 

It should be plain obvious that planets therefore move backwards at ever increasing velocities.

 

I rest my case...

 

Steven

[Sensei]

Thanks for feedback, there is no reference points in space, so the only real velocity is that between an observer and a moving body or bodies, therefore it makes little sense to calculate a velocity of a body based on how long it takes to circle a third body. As far as we the observers go, the earth is indeed at rest.

That's how everybody measure velocity of planets- using Sun as origin at rest, since Copernicus times..

 

Similar way is measured velocity of whole solar system around Milky Way center, and the all other stars.

All your stars velocities in graph from 1st post are relative to center of our galaxy.

Don't you know such basic things.. ?!

 

Great video, you would see what I mean if you changed the animation so mercury stood still, this would give the effect of all the other planets moving backwards

The problem is, I can do that.

And prove you wrong.

Because it won't work the way you think it will work..

Planets will be wobbling back & forth.

That's what greatly confused pre-Copernicus astronomers.

 

 

Turn on Full HD in YT.

It's just preview because I don't have whole week for rendering real animation.

If I recall correctly previous solar system rendered 7-8 days.

[Strange]

1. Planet Radii came from Wiki (roughly averaged) kepler velocity calculated

 

Please show your calculations.

 

2. Most likely yes, but velocity should not fall with increasing potential

 

Not "most likely," definitely. Therefore your comparison is meaningless.

 

I have just noticed that your red curve is totally bogus. It should keep increasing as the radius gets smaller not drop to zero. So you have faked the graph to look more similar to a totally unrelated graph.

 

3. that's my point dark matter is a fiction of the imagination, introduced to fix a bad theory

 

But you are misapplying theory so your results are meaningless.

 

4. Simply pointing out that Keplers interpretation is incorrectly referenced.

 

Incorrectly referenced where? It has nothing to do with galaxies. But it does correctly explain the motion of planets. So what is incorrect about it?

 

5. Looking into the distant past causes a Lorenzian frame rotation

 

Apart from the fact that is a meaningless string of words, you have evaded answering the question: why does the same thing apply to our galaxy, which is not in the past?

 

6. Keplers law describes what we see when we imagine planets moving forward, close your eyes for a minute and try to imagine the planets orbiting backwards, pluto leads the pack (its all in the mind)

 

Er, they are moving forwards.

 

7. Again dark matter doesn't exist in significant quantities.

 

Again you have evaded answering the question: how do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter? You can claim that dark matter doesn't exist, but that doesn't make the gravitational lensing go away.

 

8. Speculation

 

Nope. And another question avoided.

 

9. outside the scope of my theory

 

Even though it was the first evidence for dark matter? Another question evaded.

 

10. An apple falling from a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future ..

 

Word salad.

 

 

It should be plain obvious that planets therefore move backwards at ever increasing velocities.

 

It is plainly obvious that is incorrect.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

Been through this before Swanson, the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, looking up into space is the same as looking back in time, looking inwards is somewhat harder, so we have to imagine how it would be like looking inwards,

 

But the sun is not in our future, it is in our past. Light still takes ~8.3 minutes to get here.

 

All I am saying here is that the velocity of the planets have a negative sign in front, ie they are moving away from you the observer, i.e. not towards you. This is further evidensed by the fact that to get a rocket into orbit it must by definition travel away from you i.e. negative velocity... Further evidense is that in order to move your rocket from a low orbit to a higher orbit, you need to add energy, once again increase its negative velocity, not decrease it.

You have to travel away from us to get somewhere else because that's how basic vector math works. It's not "evidence" of anything else. You would have to move away from us to get to the sun as well — that pesky minus sign is still there, if that's how you are going to define it. Though most people would use spherical coordinates, where the velocity is positive.

 

You have to add energy to get to a higher potential because that's how potentials work.

 

Planets orbit the sun. They have mostly a tangential velocity, not a radial one, but relative to us they can move toward or away, within limits.

 

 

 

[MigL]

If you consider a spiral galaxy, it keeps its shape for billions of yrs, and an orbit takes only several million yrs.

If there was no dark matter, and the orbit was Keplerian, the galaxy would 'wind-up', and lose its spiral shape in a couple of orbits.

 

It doesn't matter if its past, present or future, or even retrograde motion for that matter.

As long as a galaxy keeps its spiral shape, there must be hidden mass involved in a particular arrangement.

[beejewel]

That's how everybody measure velocity of planets- using Sun as origin at rest, since Copernicus times..

 

Similar way is measured velocity of whole solar system around Milky Way center, and the all other stars.

All your stars velocities in graph from 1st post are relative to center of our galaxy.

Don't you know such basic things.. ?!

 

 

The problem is, I can do that.

And prove you wrong.

Because it won't work the way you think it will work..

Planets will be wobbling back & forth.

That's what greatly confused pre-Copernicus astronomers.

 

 

Turn on Full HD in YT.

It's just preview because I don't have whole week for rendering real animation.

If I recall correctly previous solar system rendered 7-8 days.

 

 

I am impressed by the way you can manipulate that video program, very clever, but your rendition showed the pre Copernican revolution version which is not what I meant. My suggestion (mayby not so clear) was to rotate the sun and the whole frame counter clockwise, so mercury appeared to stand still in it's solar orbit orbit. it would then become clear that the other planets rotate backwards. Would be really cool if you could do this.

 

Gave you a greenie point anyway.

 

Observation

Some of the armchair warriors here behave as if they are in a game of Intellectual Warcraft, they like to team up to shoot down anything that moves, and their weapon of choice is "the book". The rules should allow the book to be challenged otherwise science will not and can not move forward. Myself and many others dedicate their time to push the boundaries of physics, which by definition means challenging the book. The only warriors I am prepared to take on are those fighting with weapons of reason and logic..

 

Steven

[Sensei]

I am impressed by the way you can manipulate that video program, very clever, but your rendition showed the pre Copernican revolution version which is not what I meant. My suggestion (mayby not so clear) was to rotate the sun and the whole frame counter clockwise, so mercury appeared to stand still in it's solar orbit orbit. it would then become clear that the other planets rotate backwards. Would be really cool if you could do this.

Video from post #13 shows exactly standing still Mercury. It's origin now at 0,0,0 location.

At f.e. 4,7,10,13 seconds you can see how Sun revolves around Mercury and that little black dot on yellow Sun is exactly Mercury.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Sensei

[beejewel]

Video from post #13 shows exactly standing still Mercury. It's origin now at 0,0,0 location.

At f.e. 4,7,10,13 seconds you can see how Sun revolves around Mercury and that little black dot on yellow Sun is exactly Mercury.

 

Still not right, my suggestion is still to keep the sun at 0.00 but to reverse mercury's direction and allow the other planets to maintain their relative positions.

 

Once again as I explained to Swanson, if you wanted to get a rocket into orbit from the sun, it starts off accellerating away from the sun until it reaches its first orbit (mercury) then you accellerate it further to even higher velocity in order to reach the next orbit (mars) then you accellerate it even more to reach (earth) orbit and so on.... each time speeding up.

 

Because no one alive ever saw the planets being blasted into orbit, no one realized that they are moving backwards (away from the observer) , we naively assume they are moving forwards, but this doesn't make any sense, it leads to the contradiction that a rocket has to speed up in order to slow down???

 

Keplers law is therefore a solution to a naive view of the orbits.

 

Steven

Edited April 1, 2015 by beejewel

[imatfaal]

 

Observation

Some of the armchair warriors here behave as if they are in a game of Intellectual Warcraft, they like to team up to shoot down anything that moves, and their weapon of choice is "the book". The rules should allow the book to be challenged otherwise science will not and can not move forward. Myself and many others dedicate their time to push the boundaries of physics, which by definition means challenging the book. The only warriors I am prepared to take on are those fighting with weapons of reason and logic..

 

The book can be challenged - your posting here is proof of that. Facts cannot be challenged. Given two theories, one that matches observations and provides valid predictions for the future and a second that does neither, there is no profit in arguing for the failure against the successful. We seek better explanations, simpler explanations, more inter-connected explanations - not mere alternatives

[Strange]

Some of the armchair warriors here behave as if they are in a game of Intellectual Warcraft, they like to team up to shoot down anything that moves, and their weapon of choice is "the book"

 

What is this objection to "the book" (whatever that means) that comes up so often in the Speculations forum?

 

Is it a specific book? And what is wrong with books, they are useful things? Is it a more general objection to education or expert knowledge? And how do you distinguish answers that have come from this "mythical" book from those that have been created purely by the intellectual effort of the poster?

 

FYI, I don't have any books on dark matter. The only book on cosmology I have was written before dark matter was known about. In fact it pre-dates the CMB. The last chapter is Hoyle's "Continuous Creation" model.

 

So it would be nice if you could answer some of the objections to your model:

1. why are you comparing Kepler’s Law to galaxies, when it is obviously not relevant?

2. Why have you faked the left-hand end of your red curve to match galactic rotation curves?

3. Why does your argument apply to our galaxy, which we don’t see in the past? And why doesn’t the effect increase for more distant galaxies?

4. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter?

5. How do you explain the large scale structure of the universe without dark matter?

6. How do you explain the motion of galaxy clusters without dark matter?

[beejewel]

 

The book can be challenged - your posting here is proof of that. Facts cannot be challenged. Given two theories, one that matches observations and provides valid predictions for the future and a second that does neither, there is no profit in arguing for the failure against the successful. We seek better explanations, simpler explanations, more inter-connected explanations - not mere alternatives

 

Thanks Ground Potential is a simpler and better theory, and it makes predictions so I guess it has some value then.

[Strange]

Perhaps you could apply your theory to a galaxy, rather than planets and show that it predicts the observed rotational velocities?

 

As you will surely understand, you cannot use the solar system, with a central mass, as an analogy for the distributed mass of a galaxy.

[beejewel]

That's how everybody measure velocity of planets- using Sun as origin at rest, since Copernicus times..

 

Sensei,

 

I thought about your video animation on the way to work this morning, and the mod is simpler than we thought, just time reverse the program, i.e. just run the movie backwards!

 

If you could upload a backwards version like that it would be Senseisional

 

Steven

Edited April 1, 2015 by beejewel

[swansont]

 

Because no one alive ever saw the planets being blasted into orbit, no one realized that they are moving backwards (away from the observer) , we naively assume they are moving forwards, but this doesn't make any sense, it leads to the contradiction that a rocket has to speed up in order to slow down???

 

But that's exactly what has to happen. A circular orbit must satisfy GMm/r² = mv²/r

 

GMm/r² = mv²/r

 

v² = GM/r

 

As r increases, the orbital speed decreases. You "accelerate" with your rocket, but rocket's energy has to go into potential energy as well as kinetic.

 

You are in disagreement with both Newtonian gravitation and the vector analysis from which you derive circular motion.

 

 

Observation

Some of the armchair warriors here behave as if they are in a game of Intellectual Warcraft, they like to team up to shoot down anything that moves, and their weapon of choice is "the book". The rules should allow the book to be challenged otherwise science will not and can not move forward. Myself and many others dedicate their time to push the boundaries of physics, which by definition means challenging the book. The only warriors I am prepared to take on are those fighting with weapons of reason and logic..

 

Reason and logic mean nothing if they disagree with experiment. As imatfaal noted, you have to match observation.