New study suggests galactic bulge emissions not due to dark matter

March 13, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Credit: Australian National University

A team of researchers from the U.S., New Zealand, Australia and Germany has found evidence suggesting that a type of star formation near the center of the Milky Way is responsible for large gamma ray emissions, not dark matter. In their paper published in the journal Nature Astronomy, the group describes their study of the stars in the formation, what they found, and what it could mean for dark matter theory.

Over the past several years, a consensus of sorts has emerged among astrophysicists to explain the large from the center of the Milky Way—they are likely due to particles (WIMPs) bumping into each other or with regular matter, it was theorized. But in this new effort, the researchers report evidence of another source, casting doubt on dark matter as the likely cause of the emissions.

The researchers have been studying data from the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which has been in orbit for the past decade. They were able to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactions. In building a model to recreate what they had found, the team discovered that a more likely explanation was a collection of millisecond pulsars (rapidly spinning neutron stars)—their combined emissions appeared to have merged to create the signal that was originally attributed to dark matter—the new source may be less exciting, they note, but at least it is explainable in reasonably concrete terms.

Credit: Australian National University

The researchers note that while their findings offer the most likely explanation for the gamma ray signals, which constitutes progress in understanding our own galaxy, they also put a bit of a damper on enthusiasm for dark matter—the case for it goes back to things like light bending in odd ways, or the strange behavior observed in some galaxies, which do not offer much to go on.

Explore further: Does dark matter annihilate quicker in the Milky Way?

More information: Oscar Macias et al. Galactic bulge preferred over dark matter for the Galactic centre gamma-ray excess, Nature Astronomy (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0414-3

Abstract
An anomalous gamma-ray excess emission has been found in the Fermi Large Area Telescope data covering the centre of the Galaxy. Several theories have been proposed for this 'Galactic centre excess'. They include self-annihilation of dark-matter particles4, an unresolved population of millisecond pulsars, an unresolved population of young pulsars, or a series of burst events. Here, we report on an analysis that exploits hydrodynamical modelling to register the position of interstellar gas associated with diffuse Galactic gamma-ray emission. We find evidence that the Galactic centre excess gamma rays are statistically better described by the stellar over-density in the Galactic bulge and the nuclear stellar bulge, rather than a spherical excess. Given its non-spherical nature, we argue that the Galactic centre excess is not a dark-matter phenomenon but rather associated with the stellar population of the Galactic bulge and the nuclear bulge.

Press release

Related Stories

Does dark matter annihilate quicker in the Milky Way?

June 23, 2017

Researchers at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai have proposed a theory that predicts how dark matter may be annihilating much more rapidly in the Milky Way, than in smaller or larger galaxies and the early ...

Fermi finds possible dark matter ties in Andromeda galaxy

February 21, 2017

NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has found a signal at the center of the neighboring Andromeda galaxy that could indicate the presence of the mysterious stuff known as dark matter. The gamma-ray signal is similar to ...

Dark matter dominates in nearby dwarf galaxy

November 18, 2015

Dark matter is called "dark" for a good reason. Although they outnumber particles of regular matter by more than a factor of 10, particles of dark matter are elusive. Their existence is inferred by their gravitational influence ...

Recommended for you

HESS J1943+213 is an extreme blazar, study finds

June 21, 2018

An international group of astronomers have carried out multi-wavelength observations of HESS J1943+213 and found evidence supporting the hypothesis that this gamma-ray source is an extreme blazar. The finding is reported ...

'Red nuggets' are galactic gold for astronomers

June 21, 2018

About a decade ago, astronomers discovered a population of small, but massive galaxies called "red nuggets." A new study using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory indicates that black holes have squelched star formation in these ...

The Rosetta stone of active galactic nuclei deciphered

June 21, 2018

A galaxy with at least one active supermassive black hole – named OJ 287 – has caused many irritations and questions in the past. The emitted radiation of this object spans a wide range – from the radio up to the highest ...

53 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2018
This is data that simply speaks for itself.

What doesn't speak for itself is the airbrushed artist's rendering of a fictitious DM halo surrounding the galaxy.

If there is so much DM Cosmic Fairy Dust surrounding the galaxy, then why are there no extraordinarily high x-ray measurements emerging from the region of their airbrushed DM halo? I guess not enough RUBBING with baryonic matter?

So why can't DM particles RUB with other DM particles to create x-rays if the halo is so thick according to their airbrushing depiction? Oh, so spoonfeed the next argument to us that it's because of...........?
katesisco
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2018
Didn't all understanding of space start with charge? Once we got rid of it, the problems began.
mackita
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2018
to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactions
They look like the red rectangle galaxy, right? How this shape could be explained by pulsars? But the dark matter doesn't form particles in common sense, so that particle-based explanation cannot be correct anyway.
etherair
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2018
Man cannot give up magic. A mundane explanation just will not do, the magic, unexplained, mysterious "Dark Matter" put there by God has to be why the universe behaves as it does.

Any other explanation is crazy,
691Boat
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2018
to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactions
They look like the http://commons.w...%22.png, right? How this shape could be explained by pulsars? But the dark matter doesn't form particles in common sense, so that particle-based explanation cannot be correct anyway.


That would be a nebula, not a galaxy. Good job.
Macksb
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
This is another example of a system of coupled periodic oscillators. This "collection of millisecond pulsars" is a system of similar periodic oscillators. The spins of the pulsars have similar frequencies. Their "combined emissions ... merge." They assume a specific shape, in this case an X. These are all hallmarks of a coherent system of periodic oscillators—this collection of similar neutron stars and their similar emissions.

Over the last 7 years, I have made many other Physorg posts on periodic oscillators of various types in physics and biology and the many ways in which they synchronize. Despite the variety, the end result is always the same: e pluribus unum.
arcmetal
not rated yet Mar 14, 2018
Man cannot give up magic. A mundane explanation just will not do, the magic, unexplained, mysterious "Dark Matter" put there by God has to be why the universe behaves as it does.

Any other explanation is crazy,

Best comment ever.

Its just like a magician and his magic show. When you don't know the trick its mysterious and exciting, but once you learn how its done, its no longer interesting (to most, but not all).
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2018
Mmmm, maybe. Time will tell on this one. I'm not convinced either way.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2018
This particular study casts significant doubt that dark matter is responsible for those particular observations. This does NOT, by itself, cast any special doubt on dark matter theory itself because dark matter theory was NOT derived from those particular observations but rather from the observation of how galaxies rotate, which, at the time the theory was formulated, could ONLY be satisfactorily explained by dark matter because there wasn't any adequate alternative theory to explain those observations.

However, adequate alternative theories have now been formulated to explain those observations.
However, none of those alternative theories have been shown to be probably true with compelling evidence and, until one is, dark matter theory is still a strong contender and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.

http://www.astro....ence.htm
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2018
So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.


Why, say you, can it be "a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory" when there is not even the remotest EVIDENCE the stuff exists.

Something that supposedly makes up 80% of everything we see around us can't possibly be playing all that good of a hide & seek game with the spectroscopy analyses available to us in the 21st century, and this is exactly what this article is about, SPECTROSCOPY ANALYSES, and I know a lot about such analytics because gamma & x-ray spectroscopy is 50% of my job description.

It is pure unadulterated unscientific bohunk to create gravitationally induced halos around a galaxy to keep it from imploding on itself as zany Zwicky proposed in the 1930's while he was busy calling Einstein all kinds of names for rejecting his Tired Light Theory & Rockets Will Never Work In Outer Space Theory.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2018
The existence of dark matter has been ignored or even denied by mainstream for whole half century (as it violates the relativity) - so you can be pretty sure, this effect is real. It's just proxy name for wide group of phenomena, which may or may not exist in particle form. I'm repeatably surprised, that so many people still haven't understand it. But in wider sense every curvature of space-time could be considered as (form of) matter. This understanding could actually help o explain some dark matter phenomena, because if we would understand the gravity lens like blob of sparse matter, we could ask about its surface and gravity effects - which is just how the dark matter manifest itself. The dark matter isn't attracted to massive objects but to their gravity field at the perimeter of them.
Merrit
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2018
Dark matter is likely nothing more than the limitations and or incompleteness of our current theories. We already know quantum theory and relatively are incompatible at the small scales. The emergence of dark matter at these large scales is us simply missing or not correctly applying certain factors. It is an emergent problem. We will probably need learning algorithms to find said errors.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2018
IMO the simplest way of dark matter understanding is, it represents the transition between material objects and their vacuum fields. Analogy of quasiparticles in solid state physics: less stable and real than normal particles - but also more stable and real than virtual particles which just mediate the fields. This is actually pretty wide range in fact and in addition it's probable, that dark matter consists of all three types at the same moment.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2018
Ironically the mainstream physics has already quite good understanding of dark matter - it just "doesn't know" about it (in similar way like it "doesn't know" about supersymmetry, extradimensions, multiverse etc). Many - if not most - of mainstream ideas have a good meaning in dense aether model and they were already published - the problem is, none of them is complete, universally valid the less due to composite nature of dark matter - and for deterministic physics only systems well defined with peaks on spectrum have meaning to be pursued. Easiest way how to hide apples before mainstream scientists is to mix them with similarly looking pearls, quinces etc which will make their mass/color/etc. spectrum sufficiently diffuse and subsequently merged with noisy background. Whole the hill of apples could be disguised for the hill of turf before snooping eyes of overly determinist physicists in this simple way.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2018
The physicist are simply looking for particles with well defined spin, charge and mass like the electron - whereas the dark matter merely resembles the ripples and turbulence at the water surface: each one is different, they just have common cumulative effects (they curve water surface making it dilated and lensing). The physicists already know about this possibility for quite some time, they even know about similar character of quasiparticles of fractional spin and charge (anapoles and anyons) from solid state physics, but it requires different detection strategy - and you cannot learn an old dog the new tricks so easily. The unparticle character ruined the attempts for dark matter detections in underground detectors, whereas the attempts for detection of WIMPs in colliders were doomed by another aspect of dark matter, which we could call a "negative causality statistics".
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2018
Normal statistics considers that more observations will make the effect in question more reliable and whole the mainstream physics relies on it by its p-value based attitude. Whereas the ultramundane character of dark matter (and also SuSy particles predicted by higher-dimensional Yang-Mills theories) manifest itself in similar way, like the observation of timid deers in the high grass: the more observers and observations we will use, the lower is the probability we will spot some deer. Too many attempts for "New physics" detection at LHC did follow the very same scenario: after premature announcement of quite nice peaks of new particles their statistics waned back after prolonged run. From dense aether model follows, that high-dimensional phenomena manifest itself only during low-dimensional arrangement of existing particles in chains and stripes and the low luminosity beams tend to be more coherent and low-dimensional than these high intensity ones from this perspective.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2018
This is because the coherence of collider beam is the matter of mutual interference and synchronizing of pilot waves of infaling particles within the beam and the higher density/luminosity of beam is, the lower is the probability of such a coherence. In similar way we can observe the dark matter filaments along collinear chains of galaxies and during solar eclipses (Allais effect) and planetary conjunctions ("huh, medieval astrology!") - but not during normal motion of planets within solar system. But what the scientists do, once they find some new suspicious resonance during preliminary runs of their colliders is, they immediately smash their beams at full power in an effort to make as extensive statistics as possible, which would ruin the whole effect at the end. The "work smarter not faster" applies here more than everywhere else. But from this example we can also see, how elusive whole the dark matter can be, if it manifests itself only during collinear arrangement of matter.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018
So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.


Why, say you, can it be "a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory" when there is not even the remotest EVIDENCE the stuff exists.

Benni

Before you open your ignorant mouth, it helps to check your facts.
Here is the evidence;

http://www.astro....ence.htm

None of this evidence is proof because there are also perfectly reasonable alternative explinations but, it is evidence nevertheless thus making dark matter theory, just as I said, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2018
So dark matter theory is, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.


Why, say you, can it be "a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory" when there is not even the remotest EVIDENCE the stuff exists.

Benni

Before you open your ignorant mouth, it helps to check your facts.
Here is the evidence;

http://www.astro....ence.htm

None of this evidence is proof because there are also perfectly reasonable alternative explinations but, it is evidence nevertheless thus making dark matter theory, just as I said, at least for now, still a perfectly reasonable and valid scientific theory.
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2018
Sorry, didn't mean to double-post.

If or when there is good enough evidence favoring one of the alternative theories to dark matter theory over dark matter theory, I will dismiss dark matter theory in favor of that alternative. Until then, we cannot rationally dismiss dark matter theory out of hand. That is just the way good science works.

Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018
Benni

Before you open your ignorant mouth, it helps to check your facts.
Here is the evidence;
........No, it's just you trying to live in denial of your BMI in spite of the evidence you see in that body length mirror everyday.

You want to embark on more name calling sprees?
IwinUlose
4 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2018
Binni -
...lack of response, calls you fat in a less than clever way...challenges you to continue to the game hopefully drawing attention away from the question left unanswered...

IwinUlose
3 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2018
I'd like to try again if you all don't mind....

---

The wind howled outside rattling the bedroom's storm window.

As he pulled the can away from his lips they remained pursed; the expression on his face did not change as he sat reading over and over.

His hands seemed to take on a life of their own as his visage remained frozen in disbelief, rattling away on the keyboard with such force his doting mother upstairs had to take pause making his breakfast to discern the clacking noise echoing up the basement stairs.

The sudden silence as his fingers quit pounding out their response snapped his attention back to reality, his eyes drifted down to the comment box to read what he had written,

........No, it's just you trying to live in denial of your BMI in spite of the evidence you see in that body length mirror everyday.

You want to embark on more name calling sprees?


WIth a self assuring grin he couldn't help but utter,
Oh yes, I got you.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2018
I'd like to try again if you all don't mind....
............yes, we understand.

When you don't know what you're talking about in the first place, it becomes all the more difficult to come up with a cogent thought to make it sound like anything you have to say is relevant to subject material that is so far over your that you're drowning in irrelevancy.........there I said better than you without having to repost multiple times because unlike you I can better link the brain cells together to come up with a discernible pun.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018
Benni

Before you open your ignorant mouth, it helps to check your facts.
Here is the evidence;
........No, it's just you trying to live in denial of your BMI in spite of the evidence you see in that body length mirror everyday.

You want to embark on more name calling sprees?


So, first you open your ignorant mouth insulting me by shouting there is no evidence to support what I just said.
Then I prove you wrong by showing the evidence.
And now your only so-called 'defense' is that I insulted you by calling you 'ignorant' after showing you are.
-the evidence you claim doesn't exist is still there for all to see...

http://www.astro....ence.htm
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2018
-the evidence you claim doesn't exist is still there for all to see...

http://www.astro....ence.htm


Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of EVIDENCE, just like you understood nothing as to what this article was about which was half the dicussion about what you call evidence over there on your cherry picked site of slop & swill concepts of cosmology. Your're too old for this stuff.
IwinUlose
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018
I'd like to try again if you all don't mind....
............yes, we understand.

When you don't know what you're talking about in the first place, it becomes all the more difficult to come up with a cogent thought to make it sound like anything you have to say is relevant to subject material that is so far over your that you're drowning in irrelevancy.........there I said better than you without having to repost multiple times because unlike you I can better link the brain cells together to come up with a discernible pun.

You're talking about when you failed to respond then called him fat right?

Also it was a narrative, no puns so...what?
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018


Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of EVIDENCE.

Nope, I understand what is evidence just fine. I have now repeatedly showed you the evidence. So apparently you don't understand the concept of evidence. Why don't you study the actual science and learn something new for once and not form your opinions first.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2018
So apparently you don't understand the concept of evidence. Why don't you study the actual science and learn something new for once and not form your opinions first.


EVIDENCE is one thing, just making stuff up to fit a theory is what is called HYPOTHESIS.

I'm an engineer with 6 six years of engineering school education which I'd be more than willing compare to your background in science education. So how much college level science have you studied? Anything?

Maybe you have some more names you'd like to pull into your unscientific name calling rants just because I challenged you to produce your level of education in a field of scientific endeavor?

humy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2018


EVIDENCE is one thing, just making stuff up to fit a theory is what is called HYPOTHESIS.


And making a theory, like dark matter theory, to fit the evidence is called a theory; your point?

I have studies several sciences at university including physics over a period of about 12 years and with reasonable grades + currently doing some actual science research. I am afraid your engineering background doesn't make you qualified on dark matter theory nor cosmology. Before you comment on such things, you should first study them properly like I have.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2018
Let's be sure we understand what a conjecture, a hypothesis, and a theory are, and the role of evidence-- i.e. facts-- in differentiating between them.

A conjecture is when you see some evidence and make up an idea that explains it.
A hypothesis is when you come up with a way to test the conjecture, usually by looking at something no one's looked for before, that ought to be true or false if the conjecture is right, to see if it's a fact or not.
A theory is when you went looking for that and found or didn't find it, as appropriate, and substantiated the conjecture.

Dark matter is a theory. It has several facts (galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster dynamics, gravitational lensing by galaxies and galaxy clusters that cannot be explained by their visible mass, among other things) to support it, and some of them were not part of the original conjecture (which was based only on galaxy cluster dynamics).
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2018
[contd]
So, since we started with galaxy cluster dynamics and galaxy dynamics, and went looking for evidence in gravitational lensing and CMB characteristics that support it and found them, dark matter is a theory, supported by evidence.

Now, what is dark matter? We don't know. We don't have a theory about that. We have some conjectures, but no one has found any certain hypothesis that can be tested to show whether any of those conjectures can be substantiated.

One of those conjectures is that dark matter might be made up of particles we haven't been able to detect yet. A good way to test this is to look for these particles. We're trying that now. We're still looking because we haven't detected anything like that yet, but we haven't exhausted all our options. It's this conjecture that @Lenni and the rest of the anti-science crowd keep whining about. It's been pointed out repeatedly to them that the options aren't exhausted yet, but they keep whining anyway.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2018
[contd]
Other conjectures involve extensions to GRT. No one has come up with a testable hypothesis here either. But the case is different; we can see that the particle dark matter hypothesis has some testability; if dark matter is particles, we can go look for them. But no one has made a hypothesis for any of these GRT extension conjectures that can be tested in any way at all. These are therefore not even wrong yet, whereas we might be able eventually to exhaust all the tests for particle dark matter, and if we find such particles, substantiate it.

Given this, we can
a) test for dark matter particles, or
b) do nothing.

I'm in favor of a). The whiners appear to be in favor of b). I'll leave it to everyone to decide which is better.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2018
Now, if someone wants to come up with some GRT extension that *can* be tested, go ahead. And in fact there are theorists doing exactly that; but still, no testable hypotheses. Certainly a bunch of dumbshits whining we should stop looking for particle dark matter aren't getting anything like that done. So either come up with something testable, or STFU and stop whining.

Get it?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2018
I have studies several sciences at university including physics over a period of about 12 years and with reasonable grades
...but obviously nothing in nuclear physics like I have as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with almost two years worth of additional continuing education credits in my field of scientific endeavor.

currently doing some actual science research
In what? Why are you being so deliberately vague about your so-called scientific experience? I come here making it very clear what my professional background is, but I guess you don't do it because you can't hold a candle to it? For you it's probably something in biology, right?

Ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? Do you even know what one looks like?

your engineering background doesn't make you qualified on dark matter theory nor cosmology. Before you comment on such things, you should first study them properly like I have.
Oh, so you're a COSMOLOGIST? Self-explanatory

Benni
1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2018
we haven't exhausted all our options. It's this conjecture that @Lenni and the rest of the anti-science crowd keep whining about. It's been pointed out repeatedly to them that the options aren't exhausted yet, but they keep whining anyway.


.......coming from the guy whose basis for Black Holes comes from 19th century TUG Math, applying the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy Escape Velocity equations to an electro-magnetic wave, and then goes on name calling binges when I succinctly point out no such concept is found in Einstein's General Relativity & Schneibo doesn't know how falsify it.

Get out of the 19th & 20th centuries Schneibo, aether & TUG are gone, nowadays we have spectroscopy instrumentation, such as what the researchers were using for this study, which makes you very unhappy to read about because you can't come up with FALSIFICATION that DM DOES NOT exist in the centers of galaxies.

humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2018
Benni

It is interesting you choose to criticize my education, which you still know nothing about, as a distraction from your nonsense assertions about 'evidence' -cannot attack my argument so you again attack my character, which, just like dark matter theory, you know nothing about.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2018
It is interesting you choose to criticize my education,
.......what education?

You won't tell me what your educational qualifications are that certifies you as an expert to tell me my almost 8 eight years of education is worthless when it comes to cosmology, or anything else in science.

But I get it humy, you're embarrassed that I stand so far above your educational skill level that if you were to make an honest admission about yours, that you'd have to admit you've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve, and it's the math skills in SCIENCE that separate the grownups from the kids.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2018
Ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? Do you even know what one looks like?


Says the bloke who couldn't solve the simple equation for the Schwarzschild radius!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2018
Where's your theory, @Lenni?

Where's the beef?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2018
Where's your theory, @Lenni?


Not my theory, I don't have one about DM & BHs, you do, & no one has yet to find either. Or maybe you'd like to show where in the most obvious place we could find either in these pics:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.......but I guess OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE doesn't count when it comes to fantasy, right?

Maybe you'd like to tell us more about those telescopes that you claimed do not have resolution enough to take the kinds of pics seen in the 7th photo frame.

Like I say Schnebo & jonesy, we're now in the 21st century, get used to it, the 19th & 20th are not coming back unless you can find a way to do FTL & zip into the oncoming pathway to view those photons that left here 150-200 years ago.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2018
If you ain't got a theory, @Lenni, the scientists are at least two up on you.

Just sayin'.

Go ahead and explain the observed effects of DM and BH without DM and BH. And if you got nothin', that speaks for itself.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2018
And if you got nothin', that speaks for itself.


Got plenty, it's called OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.......in the meantime you remain mired in 19th century TUG Math for a BH that is observationally proven not to exist nor evidence for that zany Zwicky cosmic fairy dust which this article concludes also does not exist.

You realize of course, that you're living in the same fantasy world of the AETHER CULTURE? What I mean to say is that when your theories come up counter to OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that you are the type to side with the THEORY, taking the stance that observational evidence does not FALSIFY theory, science doesn't work that way, but what would you know about that old man?

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2018
Well, I'd say the observational evidence you offer trivially rejects your claims. I already said that and you had no contrary argument. So like I said, you got nothin'.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2018
Well, I'd say the observational evidence you offer trivially rejects your claims. I already said that and you had no contrary argument. So like I said, you got nothin'.


Schneibo, you just seem never able to GET IT.......the EVIDENCE is not MINE, it belongs to the owners of the telscope at: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

I don't have ANY professionally generated falsifying EVIDENCE about BH & DM, except to point out sources to those of you living in fantasyland, as to why your favorite cosmology doesn't stand the observational testing evidence of nuclear physics., and you get mad at me?

Write a scathing paper & send it over to Arizona U, explain to them why that telescope is faulty, that it is faulty because it FALSIFIES your fantasies, and explain to them why that makes them such a vapid wasteland of intellectual standing.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2018
But you can't explain how it substantiates anything you say.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

We've had this exact same conversation on at least three threads I can think of, and you haven't explained how it substantiates anything you say yet.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2018
Here, from your own source:

This shows the orbits around the black hole: http://ircamera.a...full.gif

This shows the black hole lighting up as it sucks down a planet's worth of stuff (in red): http://ircamera.a...lare.gif

Now how is that evidence there are no black holes? Note that the object at the center does not move indicating it is far more massive than the stars orbiting it.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2018
This shows the orbits around the black hole: http://ircamera.a...full.gif


No it shows a couple of fast moving stars making trajectories about the galactic center of mass. Why do you keep missing the question about the location of the BH that should be the most distinguishing feature?

For example why isn't IRS 7 doing exactly the same as a couple of rogue fast moving stars if there's some kind of 3-4 million solar mass object there pulling everything into it?

Now how is that evidence there are no black holes? Note that the object at the center does not move indicating it is far more massive than the stars orbiting it.
......and neither are the most massive supergiants surrounding the center being pulled in, meaning there is no gravity source there, if there were we'd see a huge luminous accretion bulge pulling in all that stuff you fantasize it is doing......you continue ignoring the most poignant questions they ask.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2018
Centers of mass don't make gravity magically. That's just silliness. Look up the shell theorem.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2018
Centers of mass don't make gravity magically. That's just silliness. Look up the shell theorem.

Then it's comprehensible to me why it is incomprehensible to you that you are unable to comprehend why smaller satellite galaxies orbit larger galaxies, they are orbiting a center of mass, not a single body. Still incomprehensible? Take a 1st semester physics course, there must be a senior citizen discount at a local community college?
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
Centers of mass don't make gravity magically. That's just silliness. Look up the shell theorem.
After then the barycenters would violate the equivalence principle: you know: the massive bodies revolve some empty point in space being visibly attracted to it - but no gravitational lensing is there.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2018
@Lenni, gravity doesn't come from the center of mass. It comes from the mass.

If you don't know this you're not competent to comment.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2018
Just to put this to bed, if you are at the center of gravity of any object, you feel no gravitational force because the gravity from the mass all around you is equally offset in all directions. It's therefore impossible to orbit the center of gravity of any object, whether it be a rock, a planet, or a galaxy.

Mass generates gravity; as far as we know gravity doesn't come from anything else. Certainly not from an arbitrary point in space; that would be magic, not physics.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.