NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

Robert Irion, SCIENCE Vol.300 April 11,03 pg.233

Do Some Galaxies Lack Shrouds of Dark Matter?

Slow-moving planetary nebulae on the outskirts of M105
suggest the galaxy has no dark matter. [illustration]

In a challenge to the idea that all galaxies contain
far more mass than meets the eye, a novel survey has
turned up three galaxies that seem barren of cocoons of
dark matter.

[What will obviously have to be explained is the existence
of these galaxies WITHOUT "dark matter" given the assertion
by dark-matterers that the visible galaxies are like the
foam on a glass of beer (first the beer and then the foam).
Well, here's three foams without no beer, dear intoxicant
dark-matter barflies. SDR]

"This is surprising, and we're a little puzzled about
it," says astronomer Aaron Romanowsky of the University
of Nottingham, U.K. But other researchers say it will
take stronger evidence to change their minds about how
massive galaxies form.

[You think! The entire damaged structure of a branch of
science is poised upon a rotten trunk and is about to fall
.... very likely hitting a number of squirrels squarely
"where they live." And good riddance: It's only by burning
away the old growth that new growth may live--and more often
than not this is accomplished by a bolt of lightning. SDR]

For decades, astronomers have gauged the heft of
galaxies by examining how fast they spin. In spiral
galaxies like our Milky Way, gas clouds far from the
galactic center orbit at the same rapid pace as those
in the inner sections. That points to a strong
gravitational pull in the outskirts--far stronger than
stars and gas alone can produce. Astronomers explained
the motions by invoking massive shrouds of dark matter,
containing perhaps 10 times more mass than we can see.

[In an expanding universe "model" all these notions/nonsense
of ghostly "dark matter" and later "dark energy" may be
needed to make the observed facts fit in with the mistaken
theory that it's all happening in an expanding/exploding
universe (along with twisted/demented explanations for
EVERYTHING from the constancy of c in identical mediums to
the nakedly creationist/magic Big Bang theories)... when the
truth is that ALL WE SEE is all happening inside an
imploding universe--employing which model makes the observed
facts self-evident & perfectly natural/inevitable. visit:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com SDR]

That technique fails for the giant, featureless blobs
of stars called elliptical galaxies. Ellipticals have
little gas, so astronomers must try to track the
motions of their stars. That's hard to do when
starlight grows faint in a galaxy's outskirts. An
alternate method, as Romanowsky reported this week at
the U.K./lreland National Astronomy Meeting in Dublin,
Ireland, relies on locating planetary nebulae. These
puffs of gas, which middleweight stars like our sun
eject at the ends of their lives, are full of excited
oxygen atoms that make them shine like beacons at a
single green wave-length. By measuring the motions of
the nebulae, astronomers can trace the overall
distributions of mass far from the galaxies' centers.

Using a specialized spectrograph at the 4.2-meter
William Herschel Telescope in La Palma, Canary Islands,
Romanowsky colleagues have discovered three galaxies
that contain scores of surprisingly slow-moving nebulae
in their remote outer regions. That dawdling pace
suggests that no hidden mass tugs the nebulae along.
"There's nowhere near as much dark matter as one would
expect, and the motions are consistent with no dark
matter at all," says team member Michael Merrifield,
also at the University of Nottingham.

Other scientists are intrigued but skeptical. Only
ironclad data will make astrophysicists believe that
ellipticals are naked, says Joshua Bames of the
University of Hawaii, Manoa. Many planetary nebulae, he
notes, may swoop through space on highly elongated
orbits that only make it appear as if their galaxies
lack dark-matter shrouds.

Still, astronomers are taking note--especially those
who control access to the Canary Islands telescopes.
"They were sufficiently shocked and horrified by what
we were finding," says Merrifield, that they gave his
group's proposal the highest ranking for more observing
time. The team expects to study 22 more ellipticals
within 2 years.

SDR: Under "dark matter" theory it would not be all that
surprising to find collections of "dark matter" without any
visible galaxy; but visible galaxies without any dark matter
at all are almost as unacceptable to dark matter theory as
gravity-less stars/planets. Yet, still deluded/misled by
erroneous inflationary models, theorists continue to think
up warped/twisted explanations to fit mistaken models of the
universe. [THEIR unreachable hurdle has been with us since
the time of the Greeks: the eternally stubborn conviction
that there are forms of matter that can never be "split"
inspite of ALL we have learned in the past century!] It
never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent persons
can seriously propose such a contradictory model as the dark
matter/dark energy one: 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter
still leaves us with a 50% dark energy universe after they
(ought to but don't) cancel themselves out. And such a
universe would still blow up exactly as the earliest quantum
equations would have it do (with even less "dark energy"
pumped into the equations... while yet leaving the spin of
galaxies as baffling as ever.

AGAIN: The explanation for the observable galactic spin IN
our imploding universe is the dynamics of such galactic spin
INSIDE an imploding universe (given, yes, the huge distances
taken up by these galaxies AND the balance in our imploding
universe between its "absolute implosion" and the Hubble
Constant--the creation of space/distance, which see below)
AND NOT any proposed "dark matters." Otherwise spiral
galaxies would NOT exist at all, and instead we would have
supermassive black holes with clearly-defined "rings" of
stars--exactly like the rings of Saturn... for the same
reasons those (so very stable) rings came about and live.

And the explanation for the observed Hubble Constant (the
apparent "motion" of galaxies away from each other faster
with distance) is because in our imploding universe ALL
visible matter is imploding AT EVERY LEVEL of its
organization (BECAUSE E=MC^2 does not cease to be true at
some imagined fundamental level)... thereby relativistically
"creating" space/distance between themselves even as the
entire universe itself implodes in a profoundly absolute way
we may never fully understand... here, inside the univierse.

Recent COBE and WMAP data only "proves" this even more
strongly and thoroughly than ever: To put it so simply that
even ants will be able to understand this: "The smaller an
explosion the more structural;y homogeneous the organization
of its results will be."

As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a
"singular" Big Bang episode (and demands impossible warped
and twisted explanations placing galaxies within 1/2 billion
years from the Big Bang, among other things). HOwever, our
cosmos is completely consistent with a universe that
"begins" with/from an "infinite" (for our purposes here)
spatial expanse and over unimagiably immense distances of
time (not just 13 lousy billion years) contracts (or,
implodes) into what we "see" today.

Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe IN
SPITE OF THE COBE/WMAP RESULTS [Now, from the Roentgen
Satellite, or ROSAT (an X-ray astronomy instrument has been
mapping the sky with a sensitivity/resolution far superior
to previous X-ray instruments)... START QUOTE: ROSAT has
detected extended blobs of X-ray emission that lie between
the discrete X-ray sources. Hasinger* and Truemper* propose
that these blobs are actually clusters of quasars so distant
that ROSAT cannot separate the emissions of individual ones.
Assuming the universe is about 13 billion years old, these
clusters appear to be some eight to 10 billion light-years
distant and 15 to 30 million light-years across. This is
troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]

No kidding.

But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
"dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. It's almost as if
their greatest fear is that were the universe to be
explained in all its elegance once and for all... they might
lose their jobs. And, unfortunately, their jobs happen to
converge with their authority. [Might be why the greatest
changes seem to happen with the changing of the guard.]

S D Rodrian
http://physics.sdrodrian.com

* One of the goals of the mapping has been to resolve the
X-ray background into discrete components and determine
their nature. On January 15 at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in Philadelphia, Joachim
Truemper and Guenther Hasinger of the Max Planck Institute
for Extraterrestrial Physics told scientists that ROSAT had
revealed far more quasars than could be detected before
--about 100 quasars per square degree. This implies the
presence of about four million quasars over the whole sky,
enough to account for 40 percent of the X-ray background,
Hasinger estimates.

Tropus11 wrote:

When one recognizes that energy in the form of radiation possesses inertial
mass at the same level as does energy in the form of matter

Go bowling with photons, ass.

and considers the
level of rediation in space, as evidenced by the 3K background radiation
temperature, the nature of the "Dark Matter" is obvious.
[snip]

No, stooopid. It's all been taken into account. The background
radiation field across the entire EM spectrum does not sum to a
sparrow fart in a windstorm - including primordial massed neutrinos.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Tropus11 wrote:

When one recognizes that energy in the form of radiation possesses
inertial
mass at the same level as does energy in the form of matter

Go bowling with photons, ass.

and considers the
level of rediation in space, as evidenced by the 3K background radiation
temperature, the nature of the "Dark Matter" is obvious.
[snip]

No, stooopid. It's all been taken into account. The background
radiation field across the entire EM spectrum does not sum to a
sparrow fart in a windstorm - including primordial massed neutrinos.

Question: How does one determine upper and lower
limits for the numbers of primordial neutrinos?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message ...
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Tropus11 wrote:

When one recognizes that energy in the form of radiation possesses
inertial
mass at the same level as does energy in the form of matter

Go bowling with photons, ass.

and considers the
level of rediation in space, as evidenced by the 3K background radiation
temperature, the nature of the "Dark Matter" is obvious.
[snip]

No, stooopid. It's all been taken into account. The background
radiation field across the entire EM spectrum does not sum to a
sparrow fart in a windstorm - including primordial massed neutrinos.

Question: How does one determine upper and lower
limits for the numbers of primordial neutrinos?

You can do a rough approximation by assuming that all primordial
antimatter that existed interacted with primordial matter, so that
only the total amount of matter actually exists. You thus have the
difference be the numbers you desire. Since Baryon Minus Lepton Number
is conserved, then the number of Baryons is equal to the number of
Leptons. This means that P+N=e+v. However, because of charge
conservation, P=e, N=v. Now all you have to do is find the limits on
the number of primordial neutrons, and and you'll get the number of
primordial neutrinos. It's as simple as that!

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

In sci.physics, Uncle Al

wrote
on Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:55:53 -0700
:
Tropus11 wrote:

When one recognizes that energy in the form of radiation possesses inertial
mass at the same level as does energy in the form of matter

Go bowling with photons, ass.

Actually, I just did the other day. There's a game
called "Hyperbowling" in the Metreon at San Francisco;
the idea is a silly one (one controls the ball using what
is essentially a "trackball" made up to look a bit like
a bowling ball) but does involve photons -- displaying
the results on the screen. One can "hyperbowl" on a
relatively conventional bowling alley, a street in Rome
with air flowers, in Yosemite, or in San Francisco, where
one has to steer the ball through traffic, cable cars,
etc., or in other places.

:-) ;-) :-)

Of course it involves a lot of other things, too, such as
the trackball's mass, the computer generating the images,
the display card converting the computer model to electrical
impulses, the crew ensuring the machine is in good repair, etc.

Were one to aim a laser beam at the head pin of a 10-pin bowling
alley one would probably start a fire instead of knocking it down.
This is presumably not the intended effect. :-)


and considers the
level of rediation in space, as evidenced by the 3K background radiation
temperature, the nature of the "Dark Matter" is obvious.
[snip]

No, stooopid. It's all been taken into account. The background
radiation field across the entire EM spectrum does not sum to a
sparrow fart in a windstorm - including primordial massed neutrinos.


Now there's a notion. If all of the sparrows in a sparrow swarm
were to fart simultaneously, what would happen, quantitatively? :-)

(Assuming one is some distance away. I'd hate to be directly underneath.)

This of course reminds me of the simple proof that the Universe cannot
be of infinite size (otherwise, one would be staring at the surface
of the Sun everywhere one looks). Were the 3K background radiation
significantly brighter than it is we'd have noticed it earlier.

As it is, it was discovered by a phone technician working with
microwave equipment.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.