Galaxy rotation curve

@suzianne said
This is why the Science forum people want you out of their forum.

If there's anywhere on this website that should be governed by facts, it's the Science Forum, but you still puke out your bizarro ideas there regularly.

You act as if this is a new idea. I can assure you it is not. I simply noticed before you did. I didn't invent MoND theory. Do you seriously think every person working on MoND is chasing a bizarro idea?

https://scitechdaily.com/dark-matter-may-not-exist-these-physicists-favor-of-a-new-theory-of-gravity/

You just don't notice contradictions. That is why you are so easily duped by propaganda. You have not learned to reject contradictions.

@metal-brain said
Eric Lerner said the universe is too old for the big bang. I don't know where he is getting his numbers from though. I did look into quasars since they are super massive black holes.

https://www.livescience.com/most-distant-quasar-with-jets.html

It does seem like super massive black holes would take more time than a billion years to form, but I guess it is possible ...[text shortened]... . If that is true it seems like that should prove the universe is a lot older than 13 billion years.

The thing with black holes, and mind you, I ain’t no expert, is that they should constantly and ever quicker become larger.
And they don’t.

So, what’s stabalizing them?
The current thought would be that they’re sucking something up as expected, but spewing something else out to create the balance.

This something else has mass. We know it has mass, because it interferes with things like planets and more importantly light.

So, we know there’s something there, we don’t know what. Hence the term dark matter.

But then again, I’m sure that T-Rex and ABBA have something to do with it.

@shavixmir said
The thing with black holes, and mind you, I ain’t no expert, is that they should constantly and ever quicker become larger.
And they don’t.

So, what’s stabalizing them?
The current thought would be that they’re sucking something up as expected, but spewing something else out to create the balance.

This something else has mass. We know it has mass, because it interfe ...[text shortened]... the term dark matter.

But then again, I’m sure that T-Rex and ABBA have something to do with it.

"The thing with black holes, and mind you, I ain’t no expert, is that they should constantly and ever quicker become larger.
And they don’t."

Who says they don't get larger? How do you think super massive black holes got super massive?

https://www.livescience.com/most-distant-quasar-with-jets.html

"So, we know there’s something there, we don’t know what. Hence the term dark matter."

That depends on what you mean by dark matter. Do you mean normal matter that is dark (like black holes) or a special kind of matter different than normal matter? If it is the latter you have no proof it exists.

Read the article I posted. There is no need for dark matter if you replace it with MoND theory. Besides, dark matter does not explain the rotation curve of galaxies. That is an outdated idea people are stubbornly clinging to. Kind of like the outdated idea that covid vaccines prevent the spread of covid. Myths die hard.

"So, we know there’s something there"

No you don't. STOP PROMOTING THEORY AS FACT!

@metal-brain said
When I first read that galaxy rotation curve is nearly constant I immediately realized that is not how the accepted laws of gravity are supposed to work. If the laws of gravity cannot explain the nearly constant rotation curve then the laws of gravity must be incomplete.

Surely I could not be the only person to deduct that so I looked into it and I was right, others n ...[text shortened]... atter alone cannot explain a nearly constant rotation curve with the current laws of gravity, right?

Mr. Metal Brain - Many thanks for posting something here of genuine interest. We may be very far apart in the world of politics but thumbs up to you for a welcome deviation from the political drivel. 🙂

@mchill said
Mr. Metal Brain - Many thanks for posting something here of genuine interest. We may be very far apart in the world of politics but thumbs up to you for a welcome deviation from the political drivel. 🙂

I'm glad you noticed. This is an experiment to see if people would tend to reject things that have no political bias. I have noticed that the same people with strong political bias are dogmatic when accepting any new ideas no matter how much credibility the new idea has.

For example, shav dismisses MoND for an old and outdated theory. Dark matter simply does not account for the rotation curve of galaxies. Yet he still clings to the old and outdated theory as if it was never proven wrong. He could question the measurement of stars as a possible error, but he is not in the habit of questioning anything that most people have come to accept.

Error of measurement actually satisfies Occam's razor better than MoND does. That would explain it. Neither theory is true because stars don't spin around galaxies that fast at all. If the speed was measured accurately and we are sure of it after double checking then MoND makes the most sense.

Stars moving that fast cannot be explained by dark matter no matter how much of it there is. It is simply impossible. That is why I think people should be sure the measurements are accurate before completely reinventing how the laws of gravity work.