Not true! I’m still here, the equivalent of a gila monster, refusing to let go until you answer my simple questions.

Unless, of course, you can’t.

(apologies for going off topic but I think it’s safe to say this one has long since expired)

All is clear at last.

-drl

They don’t “have some equations”, the equations are those of GR. They have a model of the galactic disk that allows the weakest sort of non-linearity to enter. Then they just do GR and surprise, you get something more than Newton/Kepler. It amazes me that this is even controversial.

Also – although there is a lot of good stuff on Wikipedia for math and science, there is enough really sketchy stuff that it’s not a trustworthy reference. I think for the most part the stuff written by Phil and other bloggers can be trusted to be up to date and accurate.

-drl

-drl

If you’re discouraging anyone from trying to see if a simpler model can fit existing data, that’s completely anti-science. The goal is completely noble and D R is completely right that more effort should be spent on it.

I’m not discouraging anything. I’m encouraging someone who is making grandiose claims to back them up with evidence. Not getting much in return except grand pronouncements, am I?

Maybe it won’t get anywhere. But it certainly won’t if nobody supports it. Strength in diversity, OK?

A person who makes a claim is the one who has to support that claim with evidence. That is the way it works. Claiming everyone is agin’ ya because of a grand conspiracy is nutter talk.

And seriously, you’re sounding completely infantile. Take a second to read what you’ve been writing. It looks like evidence of a little too much “quiet thought.”

Nobody would ever accuse me of being “quiet,” and as for my style, it is what it is. But then I’m not the one coming here accusing the whole world of science of being involved in a conspiracy against me, am I?

Once again, Lunsford, put up or shut up. I’ve repeatedly asked you simple questions to help me understand your position. You’ve repeatedly ignored them. I can only conclude, therefore, that you cannot answer them.

@ MUT: follow the link in comment #159. The quiet thinker Mr. D R Lunsford’s heroes have been rebutted quite effectively. That their ideas have not been embraced by the evil astronomical community is not evidence of a conspiracy, just good scientists doing their jobs.

I note that a quick search of the literature finds Cooperstock and Tieu offering counter arguments, but these, too, have not held up. Again, there is no conspiracy against them, it is just the nature of science to go where the evidence leads.

Once again, Mr. Lunsford is free to find evidence in support of his theories. That he hasn’t probably suggests more about his own character and situation (I refer to my conclusion in #140) than anything regarding the profession beyond his own quiet little room.

Really, people ought to get out more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

for the wiki-basics &

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/08/28/galactic-collision-gives-researchers-a-glimpse-of-dark-matter/

for more incl. links & also this one :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/04/21/dark-matter-detected/

Which gives folks the Bad Astronomer’s perspective on Dark Matter as of 2008 April 21st.

So far I’ve found this :

http://www.brynmawr.edu/physics/DJCross/docs/papers/cooperstock_review.pdf

& this :

http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2005/10/revisiting-evidence-for-dark-matter.html

Plus this abstract of their paper :

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619

Noting :

F. I. Cooperstock, S. Tieu (Submitted on 26 Jul 2005)

Abstract: A galaxy is modeled as a stationary axially symmetric pressure-free fluid in general relativity. For the weak gravitational fields under consideration, the field equations and the equations of motion ultimately lead to one linear and one nonlinear equation relating the angular velocity to the fluid density. It is shown that the rotation curves for the Milky Way, NGC 3031, NGC 3198 and NGC 7331 are consistent with the mass density distributions of the visible matter concentrated in flattened disks. Thus the need for a massive halo of exotic dark matter is removed. For these galaxies we determine the mass density for the luminous threshold as 10^{-21.75} kg.m$^{-3}.

Which I’d like to get explained in simple English if possible please.

In a nutshell – no doubt oversimplified & going from first glance, so please correct me if I’m wrong – Cooperstock & Tieu are saying they have done some equations and models which show no need for Dark Matter (or at least not in some specific galaxies) whilst the rest of the cosmologists and astronomers seem to think the observed evidence as well as other models and calculations indicates otherwise.

Fair summary?

There is an enormous vested interest in DM – showing that it is an elementary blunder to invoke it does not win many friends in the pathological academic world.

Note that C&T’s approach can also be applied to the anomalous radial velocity profiles in globular clusters. Why this work is not done, mystifies me. There is no way for the DM fiction to be invoked in that case.

Cooperstock published a small book to formalize his approach, “General Relativistic Dynamics”. I recommend it.

-drl

I think the scorn heaped on Arp is both horribly uncivilized and a terrible injustice. Other than that, no – what I feel is that GR is not well understood by many who make a lot of noise about it – including some very big names (e.g. Wheeler) and that in fact that SR is often poorly understood. I think the “more relativicum” to make some Pig Latin has not been absorbed by most of the community all these 100 years later. There is too much emphasis on pathology. Most of the models created from this position of intellectual darkness are extremely naive and are certain to become historical footnotes, like Kaluza-Klein theory. However, these aggressive and loud researchers do not take “no” or “wrong” for an answer and merely become more entrenched. They hold power and they wield it to control telescope time, among other things. So there is a pathology than spans the entire ethos of the field of hard science, both physics and astronomy (less so in physics), from working conditions to internecine competition to basic lack of comprehension to self-interested stridency. Does that make me angry? You bet it does.

-drl

In particular http://www.brynmawr.edu/physics/DJCross/docs/papers/cooperstock_review.pdf .

Condensing the summary, C-T used a model with different coordinates and the right rotation rates popped out. Unfortunately they couldn’t get all their own equations to reconcile.

I guess some claim that the error term separating the different equations amounts to dark matter? I don’t understand/didn’t read that deep.

D R didn’t say that Cooperstock’s model was flawless. That position is untenable since Cooperstock continues to refine it, divide it into alternatives, and generally respond to criticism. (Hence, not a crackpot.) Maybe it won’t get anywhere. But it certainly won’t if nobody supports it. Strength in diversity, OK?

And seriously, you’re sounding completely infantile. Take a second to read what you’ve been writing. It looks like evidence of a little too much “quiet thought.”

And how did MOND get into this discussion? There is no need for MOND. GR works just fine (Cooperstock and Tieu)

Who are Cooperstock & Tieu?

I can’t seem to find much clear info on who they are and what their theory was. Please, can you provide a little more information – say a brief paragraph or two summary on this & maybe a reference link or two – if you’re there still D R Lunsford?

Or does someone else out there know & care to enlighten us?

I guess there’s some Quiet Thinking going on. Shhh…do not disturb.

Oh, and while waiting for those answers, I thought this was a rather interesting article:

http (colon slash slash) scienceandreason (dot) blogspot (dot) com (slash) 2005 (slash) 10 (slash) revisiting-evidence-for-dark-matter (dot) html

All part of that evil astronomical conspiracy, of course.

As I said, when the galaxy is treated as a non-linear whole, GR works just fine and there is no need for DM. In the context of a galaxy’s rotation curve, DM amounts to an error from making the wrong approximation to the matter distribution. The equations are essentially non-linear, and you cannot linearize them without throwing away important phenomena, just as with Navier-Stokes.

-drl

This is an ancient problem, going back to the beginning of GR. Everything points to this as a flaw with the theory itself.

-drl

-drl