... or there is no such thing as dark matter. Something else is causing the effects we are calling dark matter and hopefully this new evidence will help ferret it out.

These small galaxies are like a string of raindrops flung out from a spinning umbrella

The existing understanding is exactly the opposite. The satellite galaxies are considered to be a remnants of ancient galaxies, which were sucked with their host galaxy in the past. Their high hydrogen and dark matter content and low intensity of star production has been attributed just to assumption, these galaxies were of quite ancient origin. This new observation implies, that these galaxies actually quite young and newly formed from their host galaxy. Not quite bad conclusion for steady state infinite Universe model, in which the galaxies must continuously form from dark matter - or they would be already evaporated.

Imagine if only the expanse outside the collapsed universe is truly empty. Then imagine matter being ripped into this expanse at the start of and equilibrating process, that we call the Big Bang. The outer limits of the expanding universe is more exposed to the empty expanse, and less shielded by the collective forces acting in opposition. In this way, gravity is very much a local, relative force, which depends on the place in the distribution of matter examined.

Just as LaViolette proposed and I have been saying for years. The satellites originate from within the parent galaxy, having been ejected therefrom likely first as clusters which then grow into dwarf satellites themselves. So that they lie largely in the plane of the parent is easily explained. But yea, ignore the obvious explanation. Merger mania forever. Fantasy rules in the minds of fanciful cosmologists.

uwn

based on this view then the universe expansion is not accelerating. Rather the closer you are to the centre (us now) the expansion is actually slowing down at a proportionate rate.

Therefore we are seeing and measuring as the accelerated expansion from our perspective at the middle. But it is actually doing the reverse thing in fact If you were looking at the transparent universe from the outside you would see the interior slowing down at a measurable proportionate rate all the way to the centre where it is standing still and has not moved from the beginning of time. The edges are flying outwards at some constant speed since there is nothing there to slow it down.

Is it possible, that gravity is just a waste product of the strong force? The strong force is inside an atom. But i am quite sure, that a little bit of this force can escape the atom.

Re: "Gravity appears to behave differently on stellar/galactic scales than it does locally."

We can rephrase this as: Gravity is a local force on cosmological and probably even astrophysical scales.

Consider that the Alpha Centaurus binary, the Sun's nearest neighbor stellar system, exerts only 1.5E-14 of one Earth gee on the Sun.

See the calculation at ...

The Weakest Force - Gravity
https://plus.goog...yeVEv7Hc

There is no sprinkling of dark matter which will get you from that to observations.

The problem is that the stars are simply too far away from one another. For a very clear explanation, see ...

The Burnham Model of Stellar Distances
https://plus.goog...eGFK52AK

I would question their data before I would discard GR.

Re: "I would question their data before I would discard GR."

The scientific community is big enough that it should be able to do BOTH at once.

I found there is barely a 1 in 640 chance for randomly distributed galaxies to line up in the observed way.

Hardly a 5 sigma observation, is it.

Galaxies are shrapnel from a gigantic collision. This would explain dark matter in that there would be none since space wouldn't be expanding, the shrapnel would. There would also be many different speeds and sizes of the objects yet only one trajectory which is away from the impact. Our universe is static.

Not all galaxies are product of mergers, but at the case of Andromeda galaxy the remnants of collisions are still quite apparent. This is how the remnant of Supernova 1987A look like by now. This supernova is also believed being a product of binary merger - this time at the stellar scale.

They assume that they were ripped from galaxies approaching each over, and forming a perfect ring expanding from each other than the other possibility of the destruction of a central core mass in the galaxy they once came from .

If a galaxy lines up just right the smaller galaxy central core can be snatched by the bigger central core making the smaller galaxy form a cone like construction dragging its mass behind it , when those cores get to close they speed up towards each other dropping off the the perimeter mini galaxies that are the farthest away from the head of the cone shape the captured central mass made of it galaxy in gravitational capture on the same plane axis .

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

What is striking about this observation is the dysfunctionally rigid response which always immediately seeks out the answer which causes the least harm to existing theory.

The Universe does not share your insecurity that your knowledge might be wrong. That is entirely happening in your heads.

I had this vision of traveling 200 years or so into the future and asking scientists if they had figured out how the universe worked yet.

They said they had pretty much given up on it because the more they looked the more complex the universe appeared to be, until it became pretty clear that there was no way of ever understanding it.

But after a period of wailing and teeth gnashing and garment rending they concentrated on applied science, and became very good at building orbital rings and starships and planet-sized telescopes robotically. They built accelerators to make antimatter and stellerators to store it rather than smashing particles into smaller and smaller bits to no avail.

The reasons why these things worked had become less important than how they worked. Theory had surrendered to applied science.

And they never did figure out how LENR worked, they were just glad that it did.

Re: "Einstein's theory was based on the Minkowski interpretation of space-time ...This interpretation was incorrect, since the full characteristics of electromagnetic radiating fields was not fully defined until some years later ..."

That's not the only non-linear historical development in modern science which should concern us.

Realize that virtually all of our current theories in the space sciences have evolved from a conception of space which was entirely empty.

A 1963 Popular Science article stated the problem, in hindsight -- after we actually sent the first rockets into space -- as ...

"'Space' was invented on Earth before we knew what was out there"

See the top of page 76 here ...

https://books.goo...;f=false

The interview begins ...

"I found Dr. Van Allen in Boston, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was conferring with other space scientists. That evening, over dinner, I asked him about newly discovered phenomena of 'empty' space. 'Most people still think of space as a cold, black vacuum,' I said. 'Is it true that scientists shared this misconception until very recently?'

'Most scientists did think of space as a barren waste,' he said. 'When we started getting real information, it was quite a revelation.'"

I highly recommend that people read this article. It bears much historical importance because the lessons we learned in 1958 with the first rockets never fully percolated through society.

People are still struggling to understand what it means that 99% of what we see in space is in the plasma state, and there remain many scientists who would have us believe that the universe's dominant state for observable matter can change without consequence.

Re: "I would question their data before I would discard GR."

The scientific community is big enough that it should be able to do BOTH at once.

Hear, hear! Yes please, I believe that open minds gets us further than dogged obedience.

Mr Banik added: "In Einstein's gravity paradigm, hypothetical dark matter is always invoked. Such a high speed requires 60 times the mass we see in the stars of the Milky Way and Andromeda. However, the friction between their huge halos of dark matter would result in them merging rather than flying 2.5 million light years apart, as they must have done."

Nice fairy tale once again with absolutely no facts to back it up. Next year it'll be a different story altogether.

If one were to reconsider Halton Arp's work it becomes possible that a galaxy, possibly Andromeda, could have emitted a string of entities that we know more commonly as quasars in it's historical development. Quasars have shown a remarkable change in their red-shift signature over a space of only 12 years, changing from the characteristic "quasar-like" red-shift signature to a plain old galaxy signature. Thus this could provide a far more realistic and plausible explanation for the actual dwarf observations.

Re: "I would question their data before I would discard GR."

The scientific community is big enough that it should be able to do BOTH at once.

It's too bad the insular, close-minded climatologists don't seem to be part of the scientific community.

If we are talking about discarding GRT we need six sigma evidence.

This ain't it.

If we are talking about discarding GRT we need six sigma evidence.

This ain't it.

Of course, even with such a strong signal, we wouldn't discard it any more than we've discarded Newtonian gravity.

I forgot to quote @barakn. I was agreeing with you. Just slipped my mind I guess.

Hardly a 5 sigma observation, is it.

Not even that. What people here are ignoring is that the author is not claiming a 1 in 640 rejection of standard cosmology. Standard cosmology doesn't claim satellites are randomly oriented. For a start they infall in along filaments which means they don't fall in isotropically. The significance the author is quoting is the significance he assigns to their being a ring structure in the instance where the distribution is random. One can immediately criticise the use of such statistics as it's already known from the disk of satellites that the distribution isn't random and isotropic.

There is no need to discharge old theory once we find another more exact one. For example, the shape of waterfall differs from parabola in most practical cases, yet the parabola (derived from Newton laws) remains the first effective approximation of it. Essentially all cosmic flights are still calculated to a twenty digits of precision - just with ancient Kepler and Galileo laws from sixteen century. What we need more advanced theory for is actually the better understanding of these old ones. If the new theory doesn't provide this feature, it will usually get abandoned anyway.

If you read the actual paper they only have a single sentence which they use to point at modified gravity. That sentence contains the assumption that the ring is significant and generated in the way they suggest. I'll wait however until this observation is tested against real standard cosmology simulations. It's only then it's significance in standard cosmology will actually be known. I'll be thrilled if a day comes when day dark matter is ruled out but I want to see it done properly.

There is no need to discharge old theory once we find another more exact one. For example, the shape of waterfall differs from parabola in most practical cases, yet the parabola (derived from Newton laws) remains the first effective approximation of it.

The reality of the water fall analogy is because it is both parabolic AND hyperbolic... At alternating oppositional points along a trajectory...

Rules of attraction: Why it's time to rethink how gravity works - There is nothing to rethink - the physicists don't know how gravity works and the latest working idea (LeSage theory of gravity) is four centuries old.

water fall analogy is because it is both parabolic AND hyperbolic

Never heard of it - could you explain, why it's hyperbolic?

water fall analogy is because it is both parabolic AND hyperbolic

Never heard of it - could you explain, why it's hyperbolic?

The parabola of a waterfall is a huge collection of hyperbolic events, interspersed with well-timed parabolic events..
Turned parabolic by the combination of (mass and momentum of) the body of water and - gravity...
I like to watch stuff dance...:-)

If we are talking about discarding GRT we need six sigma evidence.

This ain't it.

This is it.

Anyone who supports the concept of infinite gravity at the center of a finite stellar mass has already gone down a sigma trail totally backwards from the laws of physics of the Inverse Square Law for gravity.

You are already someone, who has in your own mind has re-invented Einstein's General Relativity & rearranged demonstrable laws of physics to suit your beliefs in Schwarzschild Black Hole Math.

It doesn't matter to you that Einstein was very public in his statements that his Field Equations could not be used as the mathematical construct for BHs, but that doesn't become a sigma factor for you.

The parabola of a waterfall is a huge collection of hyperbolic events, interspersed with well-timed parabolic events

OK

The parabola of a waterfall is a huge collection of hyperbolic events, interspersed with well-timed parabolic events

.......if you want to have some real fun, ask him to explain it. It'll sound something like Schneibo trying to apply the Inverse Square Law to black hole formation.

I think, that the registration form at ScienceX site should contain at least some minimal test of intelligence. The introduction of reCAPTCHA needlessly eliminated the very last IQ barrier for participation in public forums.

The parabola of a waterfall is a huge collection of hyperbolic events, interspersed with well-timed parabolic events

.......if you want to have some real fun, ask him to explain it. It'll sound something like Schneibo trying to apply the Inverse Square Law to black hole formation.

ISL is subject to the same rules of relational symmetry as everything else...
Hope that's not too complicated for ya...

I think, that the registration form at ScienceX site should contain at least some minimal test of intelligence. The introduction of reCAPTCHA needlessly eliminated the very last IQ barrier for participation in public forums.

How do you define intelligence?
Most IQ tests don't test for data retention, they test for relational skills...

This *conclusively* disproves your claim that BHs violate the ISL

On the deceleration behaviour of black holes

Singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Here AGAIN is a video that USES the inverse square law to explain the formation of a black holes. This *conclusively* disproves your claim that BHs violate the ISL.

Your cherry picked video is evidence of what journalists like you promote, Fake Science & Fake News. You should actually study the above definition of a BH.......it's BS.

Here AGAIN is a video that USES the inverse square law to explain the formation of a black holes. This *conclusively* disproves your claim that BHs violate the ISL.

Of course it doesn't surprise me that a journalist like you would fall for something with such convoluted explanations the end result of which so unintelligible that after you listen to it, you ask yourself: "What did this person say"?

RNP, I understand why you're a Journalist, math is tough, Nuclear Physics is even tougher, but that's the difference between you & me, I've actually done the math & physics & you can only dream about it.

Presentation by Halton Arp where he explains the 7 Sigma observation that quasars are ejected from galaxies.
https://www.youtu...EfCOr-Y0
Not only running away from Einstein but also the dark sciences of the astrophysicists.

Your lack of education is probably explained by persistence in your delusions even in the face of overwhelming evidence

Singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

What is delusional is that you keep trying to peddle a narrative that the Inverse Square Law can be distorted in such a manner that INFINITE DENSITY & INFINITE GRAVITY can be found at it's center as defined in the above link.

You have also never "done the math & physics", I would know, I have TAUGHT the maths and physics

Anyone who has "TAUGHT" the kind of physics that appears on your favorite video, is indeed someone who is merely a Journalist.

No Nuclear Physicist would swallow a reverse application of the Inverse Square Law in which it is claimed maximum gravity exists at the center of a stellar mass as opposed at surface, think EFEs Mr Journalist.

You fail to understand the structure of a black hole

......well of course, it doesn't stand up to the scrutiny as thusly defined:

Singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Actually WATCH the video that I linked

What makes you think I haven't?

Rguy,

Your entire concept of applying the Inverse Square Law is not in comport with the well established Laws of the Einstein Field Equations, this is amply demonstrated by the WikiPedia quote I copied above which is the quintessential definition of a black hole, that INFINITE GRAVITY & DENSITY must exist at its center, of course an impossibility for a stellar body of FINITE MASS.

Convolute the Inverse Square Law anyway you like, but somehow it will be necessary to take a FINITE MASS & make it do a Magical Transformation to infinite gravity & density, and there are no demonstrable laws of physics in Special or General Relativity by which such transformation can be accomplished......go back to grade school science & relearn your thinking processes, learn that something infinite cannot be created from something that is finite.

@IMP-9, very nice analysis. Thanks for that.

@RNP, you are far more patient than I.

@RNP, you are far more patient than I.

If you'd simply come to grips with the concept that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT you'd get a better handle on your patience with my textbook challenges to your meager concepts of the basic tenets of Einstein's General Relativity. But for you it's more fun to wander aimlessly in fantasyland where Perpetual Motion rules the day as well as the night.

This *conclusively* disproves your claim that BHs violate the ISL

http://www.aei.mpg.de/126809/On_the_deceleration_behaviour_of_black_holes

interesting link. There was a MIT paper on PO a little bit ago, that describes a similar behaviour in electron emissions...

@RNP, you are far more patient than I.

If you'd simply come to grips with the concept that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT

Which is dependent on density... which is, in turn, dependent on - wait for it...
gravity..

If you'd simply come to grips with the concept that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT

Which is dependent on density

.....okay, you want to be the next RNP & Schneibo, copy & paste the section this appears in Einstein's GR.

... which is, in turn, dependent on - wait for it...
gravity..

.....and this as well?

Why do you BH Enthusiasts find it so difficult to find your DENSITY theories for gravity within the text of General Relativity? Hell's bells, simple answer, it isn't there.

Which is dependent on density

.....okay, you want to be the next RNP & Schneibo, copy & paste the section this appears in Einstein's GR.

It doesn't. It's an EXTENSION...

... which is, in turn, dependent on - wait for it...
gravity..

.....and this as well?

A FURTHER extension.

Why do you BH Enthusiasts find it so difficult to find your DENSITY theories for gravity within the text of General Relativity? Hell's bells, simple answer, it isn't there.

Not a BH enthusiast.
I'm a RELATIVITY enthusiast...
(which includes BH's... ;-)

If you'd simply come to grips with the concept that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT

And mass is GRAVITY dependent.
Interesting how that works...:-)

BTW, Benni,
You should also look at some of his other works. IE; statistics and rotational Brownian motion...
They're ALL part of a bigger package...

Not a BH enthusiast.
I'm a RELATIVITY enthusiast...
(which includes BH's... ;-)

More of a pop-sci guy rather than actual science, at least you're honest about your proclivities.

you want to be the next RNP & Schneibo, copy & paste the section this appears in Einstein's GR

.

It doesn't. It's an EXTENSION...

... which is, in turn, dependent on - wait for it...
gravity..
.....and this as well?

A FURTHER extension.

You BH Enthusiasts love "extensions" don't you? You love them because it's the only way you can come up with narratives to circumvent a conclusion Einstein had already concluded that BHs proposed by Schwarzschild cannot exist:

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL: http://www.jstor..../1968902

In the next post below this, I will post the text of Einstein's "extensions" and you can followup & tell us why nothing he states about his own thesis is relevant......cont'd

........cont'd:

On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

Albert Einstein-Oct 1939

........cont'd:

On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses

Hi Benni,

Colour me intrigued, I'm new to the discussion boards on this site so I have not had the chance to read all you have written on this subject.

I assume your dislike of the notion of BH's is more than just a semantical distinction for you between a singularity with infinite mass and a region of space-time with a defined size and mass but which is, to all intents and purposes, black and hole like?
Or to put it another way do you reject the notion of a region of extremely dense space-time that emits nothing but gravity and if so what is it you replace it with, what is the matter that is orbiting a black hole orbiting if not a black hole? .

I assume your dislike of the notion of BH's is more than just a semantical distinction

.........it's Einstein's own words in his 1939 paper in which he discusses why the Schwarzschild Metric carried out to the extreme is untenable, it's Perpetual Motion.

do you reject the notion of a region of extremely dense space-time that emits nothing but gravity

Can you show by a demonstration of EVIDENCE that MASS has some uncanny ability to create additional forces of gravitational attraction by simply being squeezed into an incrementally smaller volume?

We have pressure chambers on planet Earth by which we create manmade diamonds by increasing pressure on a lump of carbon making it many hundreds of times smaller than its original volume, but have you ever heard of the end product having increased gravitational attraction? No, you never have, simply because the quantity of MASS never changed. the explanation being that gravity is not density dependent.

Can you show by a demonstration of EVIDENCE that MASS has some uncanny ability to create additional forces of gravitational attraction by simply being squeezed into an incrementally smaller volume?

Yes, it's called the "inverse square law." And it's not uncanny in any way shape form or fashion, it's part of Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and Kepler's Laws of Orbital Motion, never mind relativity.

Which if you knew high school algebra and physics you'd already know. Hmmm a self-proclaimed "engineer" who doesn't know high school algebra and physics.

Dum da dum dum. Dum da dum dum duhhh.

Yes, it's called the "inverse square law." And it's not uncanny in any way shape form or fashion, it's part of Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and Kepler's Laws of Orbital Motion, never mind relativity.

.........and everytime you come here to explain how the Inverse Square Law works you create a reverse application of it to the formation of BHs whereby you contend maximum gravitational attraction of a BH occurs at its center instead of at the surface.

You still do not grasp the concept that when applying the Inverse Square Law to ANY gravitating body, that maximum gravitational attraction ALWAYS occurs at the surface of the gravitating body, not its CENTER.

@Lying Lenni's at it again.

The inverse square law works both ways, @Lenni. Now explain the stars orbiting the whatever-it-is at the center of the galaxy (since it gets you so upset I won't call it a "Black Hole").

With differential equations, please. You do realize you need those even for Newtonian gravity, right?

explain the stars orbiting the whatever-it-is at the center of the galaxy (since it gets you so upset I won't call it a "Black Hole").

........the same as companion stars which orbit one another within a few minutes time & which are nowhere near the center of the galaxy.........do a google search & study a few of them, here's one you can start with:

http://www.space....tes.html

the same as companion stars which orbit one another within a few minutes time

Five minutes with a graphing calculator (if you actually know differential equations) shows this is wrong. There has to be something there that has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. It can't be a star; no light comes out.

Whatcha gonna call that thing with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, @Lenni?

The rest of us in the real world call it a "Black Hole." Get over it.

The rest of us in the real world call it a "Black Hole." Get over it.

http://www.space.......Learn the difference, companion stars are not BHs & these are doing everything you imagine can only occur in the presence of your fantasy BHs.

There has to be something there that has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. It can't be a star; no light comes out

......then you should tell us where to find one of those pictures of BHs you claim to have seen & that'll clear it all up won't it.

How about a selfie of you standing sideways next to the telescope through which those pictures were taken?

@Lying Lenni doubles down.

The "companion star" has enough mass to have a field strong enough to make an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, @Lying Lenni.

What are you going to call that "companion star," @Lying Lenni?

@Lying Lenni doubles down.

The "companion star" has enough mass to have a field strong enough to make an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, @Lying Lenni.

What are you going to call that "companion star," @Lying Lenni?

Just be standing sideways when you snap that selfie Schneibo, we want to be certain of what makes up 80-95% of you & that you're not trying to blame it on dark matter.

@Lying Lenni, you are trying to divert the conversation away from your lies.

What do you claim we should call a "companion star" with a gravity large enough to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light?

I nominate "Black Hole." Let's hear your proposal.

Yes, it's called the "inverse square law." And it's not uncanny in any way shape form or fashion, it's part of Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and Kepler's Laws of Orbital Motion, never mind relativity.

.........and everytime you come here to explain how the Inverse Square Law works you create a reverse application of it to the formation of BHs where you contend maximum gravitational attraction of a BH occurs at its center instead of at the surface.
maximum gravitational attraction ALWAYS occurs at the surface of the gravitating body, not its CENTER.

Max gravity occurs at whatever point max density starts (outside looking in)
If the surface and center are the same density, the surface has become the "center", and the ISL then has to change it's angular reference point structure to match an increase or decrease of surface area.
The ISL is subject to relativity, too...

You BH Enthusiasts love "extensions" don't you?

Call them derivatives, then... Something you constantly hark about, but don't seem to be doing...

Can you show by a demonstration of EVIDENCE that MASS has some uncanny ability to create additional forces of gravitational attraction by simply being squeezed into an incrementally smaller volume?

Hi Benni,

I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm just interested to understand what it is that [b]you[/b] perceive to be left over after the supernova of a blue supergiant -for eg. Is it some form of star made of subatomic particles, a quark star perhaps, or something even more exotic, a string star?

Your reply does read like you reject the possibility of a physical object having a gravity well sufficiently curved to prevent the escape of light. Is that so?

Thanks for your time.