« on: 26/06/2022 14:14:37 »
What dark matter formula are you talking about? Scientists do indeed have ideas about what dark matter could be: axions, sterile neutrinos, WIMPS, and primordial black holes for example.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Don't you agree that the dark matter idea can't offer a solution for the galactic rotation curve in the Bar segment?
If you think that the gravity is not good enough for the Bar, then how the bar really works based on your understanding?
If you try to break down the temporary structure of the spiral arm in the galactic disc, then all the stars in that arm would be kicked out from the galactic disc.
Nothing would help. Not even the dark matter imagination.
Again, do you mean that there is a problem in the bar or in the galactic disc?
But so far you have no real solution for the Bar rotation curve problem?
As the stars are connected to the spiral arm, then their orbital velocity is dictated by the orbital velocity of the arm itself.
The dark matter idea CAN'T explain this phenomenon!!!
Why do we prefer the dark matter idea that can only solve 25% of the problems while the gravity of the spiral arms can solve 100% of the problems?
Please be aware that at some point those far end stars in the spiral arms must be disconnected from the arm.
The dark matter idea can't also give an answer for that
Therefore, the only way for a star to keep itself in the galactic disc is by holding the spiral arm.
There is no violation of any physical law by the Bar (including the Kepler's third law).
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
Hence the same gravity force that holds the stars in the bar arm and in the spiral arm as one connected temporary structure, also keeps each arm as a temporary structure.
Is it clear?
It is stated that: "the result of the simulations is very satisfactory"
Why do we continue to hold the dark matter imagination?
Why can't we accept the simple observation and the mathematical simulation validation that the Bar is used as a funnel to drift stars from the Bulge directly to the spiral arms?
Why do we insist to believe in something that we can't see feel or smell?
So who can explain the functionality of the Bar in the spiral galaxy?
So how our scientists claim that they know how the spiral galaxy works while they don't have a basic clue how he Bar segment works?
what's more important is that for a body composed of atomic matter, such as a planet, there is some large number of very ephemeral electrons surrounding it which is analogous to the gravitational field.
When another object y approaches the secondary electron density of an object x the secondary density electrons from x pop-up within the first electron shell, or within the primary electron density of the atoms composing object y and exert a very mild force of attraction over the protons in the nucleus of object y.
En masse this effect produces a net force of attraction between two objects which is proportional to their mass.
I'll quickly deal with a potential objection. Neutron beams curve due to a polarisation effect caused by the secondary electron density over the up quark in the neutron, given that the up quark is 2/3 charged and the down quarks are -1/3 charged the net force of attraction is greater than the force of repulsion. I admit this is one of the many weaknesses of the theory, but please bear with me.
given that electrons repel each other, and that objects composed of atomic matter are surrounded by secondary density electrons, there should be a resistance generated between the secondary electron densities of rotating bodies that is greater than non-rotating bodies.
Neither the moon nor Mercury rotate.
Einstein's explanation of this was that the sun's orbital wobble causes ripples in the fabric of spacetime that causes Mercury to shift on it's orbit.
In my theory it's primarily the gravity of the other planets and secondarily the gravity of the rest of the galaxy that pulls on Mercury and causes precession in it's orbit.
Because it doesn't rotate it isn't as 'locked-in' to it's orbit around the sun as the other planets.
Extend this effect to the rest of the galaxy and you find that the majority of bodies within the galaxy rotate and are, crucially, nested within the secondary electron density of the supermassive black hole at the centre.
One way to test this experimentally would be to examine the rotational speed of the SMBH and correlate it to the rotational curve of the galaxy, if it's the same it implies there's some connection between the rotational speed of SMBH and that of the galaxy
that the primary electron density of the black hole has been pushed beyond the event horizon
The greater the number of photons per cubic metre, i.e. the lower the probability that they've already been scooped up by an electron prior to entering the sample cubic metre, i.e. for a number of photons from a star say moving towards the point of observation the electrons will tend to absorb the photons of a lower energy due to the, on average, higher number of electrons that the light has to move through
on the scales of general relativity looks curved.
Also, just to head off another possible objection, the reason why the speed of light remains a constant is because the exchange of photons between secondary density electrons is instantaneous.
Also, to explain the emissions of gravitational waves by merging black holes and binary pullers, you have to imagine the gravitational waves as emissions of pure energy i.e. photons
As objects approach the speed of light they become saturated with an increasingly large number of secondary density electrons
Since time just measures motion the slowing down of moving objects, including things like RNA on DNA strands, and clocks, caused by the secondary electron density, time slows down also by definition.
Length contraction is for a similar reason, as objects approach the speed of light the electrostatic force surrounding the object forces it to occupy an increasingly small space
Experimental tests: Prove that electron beams are affected by gravity. Prove that neutrinos are affected by gravity. Perform experiments with negatively-charged ions to see if they fall in a gravitational field.
In the Earthís gravitational field, neutrons fall with an acceleration equal to the local value g . The free fall does not depend on the sign of the neutronís vertical spin component . The studies provide evidence in support of the weak equivalence principle of the equality of inertial mass mi and gravitational mass mg. The results obtained by Koester and others confirm that mi/mg is equal to unity to an accuracy of 3 ◊ 10−4 [18, 19] and is a consequence of classical mechanics and this has been demonstrated by verifying that neutrons fall parabolically on trajectories in the Earthís gravitational field.
I'm pretty sure that puts this thread on the wrong side of the rules.
Certainly, many fora require that the discussion takes place without having to go to other sites to see what the question is.
Posting "this is true, but I'm not explaining why" is too close to preaching.
The Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?
However, gravitational fields are, I suspect, electron densities.
Having said that, you're just asserting that this idea of mine isn't compatible with relativity, you're not even giving an explanation as to why it isn't.
Could it be that our scientists observe that the Bar and the spiral arms are connected as one solid object?
If not, then please explain what do you understand from this observation?
Oh, what, you think I haven't studied general relativity?
The problem with you people is that you believe that every theory in physics is 100% true.
hence we have quantum gravity theories.
This is GR dogmatism.
We know that EVERY law has a limited domain of application.
Before adding anything to this thread it would be useful to know if @Kryptid is already done or satisfied with the replies.
"Gravitational fields are not made of electrons." unjustified assertion. In terms of neutron star physics, it's highly unlikely they could be made of anything else. Their core is a bloody atomic nucleus (in essence) dude, think!
Also, I enjoy how you're distracting yourself with this quibbling over Hawking radiation and not addressing my point on dark energy (which was the original topic I was, here, intending to discuss). Nothing about the Casimir force also. Interesting.