23 hours ago, kba said:

I saw the question in the title of topic and answered to its author.

Yes, you answered someone else’s thread with your own personal theory. This needed to be pointed out.

One element of this that I think is VERY crucial that is not always clearly defined is WHEN are you taking your static picture of the rotating mass.

That is when you are building your mental image of the rotating mass you are taking the whole model as if it is happen at the same time.

Is this arrangement the way we see it, the way it was when the light and gravity left the various components, or is it projecting where the elements would be now after all the time it took the light and gravity to get here?

We only understand something based on the model of it that we build in our heads, or on a piece of paper or out of paper mâché hanging from the roof on wires, or on a computer screen.

If part of our model is built using a different time perspective, than another part of the model, the model would tend to be incorrect and not be an analog version of what is really happening.

The whole galaxy is not in the same place at the same time. That is the Galaxy only has ONE configuration at the moment, and we can't see what that configuration is. All our information about the galaxy, the position of the stars and dust we see is old news. The closer stuff more recent than the further stuff but the only TRUE model of the galaxy would be to pick a time and build the model of the ONE configuration the Galaxy is currently in, by projecting the observed position of the stars and their motion over the time it took the image of said star to get to us.

Everyone is assuming scientists take into account the travel time of light when making the calculations of the rotation of distant Galaxies. But do they? When they build their model, are they calculating what is was doing, what it is doing or what it looks like its doing?

To illustrate my point let me ask how many supernovas are currently extant in our galaxy?

So there are two ways to look at it. From here and now. From a God like perspective where the whole galaxy is in only one configuration at the moment.

To use a gravitation law equation on the rotation of the galaxy you have to take the whole galaxy as happening at the same time.

To apply this equation to our own Galaxy is already problematic as the various components we witness are reporting their positions to us over a 10,000year period of time.

When we see a supernova in a distant galaxy, that happened a billion years ago.

how could we figure out how fast that galaxy is rotating now, based on Billion year old information?

55 minutes ago, tar said:

how could we figure out how fast that galaxy is rotating now

What does that mean ??

You've been here long enough to know that there is no common now.

13 hours ago, tar said:

how could we figure out how fast that galaxy is rotating now, based on Billion year old information?

We don't. If there is a small explosion on the moon from a meteor strike and we see it via a decent ground based telescope, then the event occurred just over a second before.

If it is on the sun then it's 8 minutes before, outer planets hours and stars in our galaxy, years.

In terms of galaxies they can look at Doppler shift and those events can be billions of years in the past.

Scientists can get a lot of information from this as they effectively have a three dimensional history of the past, right back to the earliest galaxies detected by the James Webb space telescope, the record holder at the moment is a galaxy that formed 280 million years after the BB. (CMBR too plus some unconfirmed early objects at z=25)

16 hours ago, MigL said:

What does that mean ??

You've been here long enough to know that there is no common now.

MigL, I disagree. There is no now that we all agree on the definition of. I proposed two nows in another thread. I know that did not go over to well here, but I still model the universe based on that idea.

Consider perhaps that there IS a common now, give or take several seconds, or the time it takes light speed signals to go from one side of the Earth to the other.

We are all IN the same now, so that must be our common now. When we had this discussion years ago we were all in the same now then. Now we all have experienced the same now continually until this one, and we still are all in the same now. There is only one instance of Earth. The configuration it was in several years ago....all the configurations in-between... and the configuration it is in now.

Regards, TAR

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

We don't. If there is a small explosion on the moon from a meteor strike and we see it via a decent ground based telescope, then the event occurred just over a second before.

If it is on the sun then it's 8 minutes before, outer planets hours and stars in our galaxy, years.

In terms of galaxies they can look at Doppler shift and those events can be billions of years in the past.

Scientists can get a lot of information from this as they effectively have a three dimensional history of the past, right back to the earliest galaxies detected by the James Webb space telescope, the record holder at the moment is a galaxy that formed 280 million years after the BB. (CMBR too plus some unconfirmed early objects at z=25)

Understood, Pinball1970, but your 3D history is made up of components of various ages. The entities we see now that existed 13 billion years ago STILL exist. They have no way of leaving the universe, all they can do is evolve for 13billion years. They are still out there. My guess would be those areas of space now look something like it looks around here. Of course there is no way to verify that, we will have to set our equipment on record and review the tape in 13B years to see that area of space evolve into what it looks like around here.

Regards, TAR

18 hours ago, tar said:

One element of this that I think is VERY crucial that is not always clearly defined is WHEN are you taking your static picture of the rotating mass.

That is when you are building your mental image of the rotating mass you are taking the whole model as if it is happen at the same time.

Is this arrangement the way we see it, the way it was when the light and gravity left the various components, or is it projecting where the elements would be now after all the time it took the light and gravity to get here?

We only understand something based on the model of it that we build in our heads, or on a piece of paper or out of paper mâché hanging from the roof on wires, or on a computer screen.

If part of our model is built using a different time perspective, than another part of the model, the model would tend to be incorrect and not be an analog version of what is really happening.

The whole galaxy is not in the same place at the same time. That is the Galaxy only has ONE configuration at the moment, and we can't see what that configuration is. All our information about the galaxy, the position of the stars and dust we see is old news. The closer stuff more recent than the further stuff but the only TRUE model of the galaxy would be to pick a time and build the model of the ONE configuration the Galaxy is currently in, by projecting the observed position of the stars and their motion over the time it took the image of said star to get to us.

Everyone is assuming scientists take into account the travel time of light when making the calculations of the rotation of distant Galaxies. But do they? When they build their model, are they calculating what is was doing, what it is doing or what it looks like its doing?

To illustrate my point let me ask how many supernovas are currently extant in our galaxy?

So there are two ways to look at it. From here and now. From a God like perspective where the whole galaxy is in only one configuration at the moment.

To use a gravitation law equation on the rotation of the galaxy you have to take the whole galaxy as happening at the same time.

To apply this equation to our own Galaxy is already problematic as the various components we witness are reporting their positions to us over a 10,000year period of time.

When we see a supernova in a distant galaxy, that happened a billion years ago.

how could we figure out how fast that galaxy is rotating now, based on Billion year old information?

Why does this matter? Sure, when we see light from a distant galaxy it was emitted in the past but there is, so far as I am aware, no suggestion the rotational behaviour of any given one is different from others at different distances, i.e. seen at different stages of the evolution of the cosmos. That being so, there is no evidence that the laws of physics have changed over time. So the problem of dark matter remains one to be solved on the basis of present day physics. Isn't it? Why then would the time the light was emitted be important?

1 hour ago, tar said:

When we had this discussion years ago we were all in the same now then. Now we all have experienced the same now continually until this one, and we still are all in the same now.

When we had this conversation years ago, you were made to understand why there cannot be a common 'now'.
None of us have changed our minds, but you seem to have gone back to your original misunderstanding.
Obviously our 'nows' have diverged, and are not common anymore 😄.

20 hours ago, tar said:

The whole galaxy is not in the same place at the same time. That is the Galaxy only has ONE configuration at the moment, and we can't see what that configuration is. All our information about the galaxy, the position of the stars and dust we see is old news. The closer stuff more recent than the further stuff but the only TRUE model of the galaxy would be to pick a time and build the model of the ONE configuration the Galaxy is currently in, by projecting the observed position of the stars and their motion over the time it took the image of said star to get to us.

Some of the galaxies we observe are oriented perpendicular to us, which simplifies the issue of light travel time. In any event, it’s a solvable issue. Spiral galaxies are rotating; the spirals are not some accident of light travel time. The thing you’re not taking into account is that we get red- and blue-shift information from spectrographic analysis, which tells us a velocity component. We can get actual rotation information.

how could we figure out how fast that galaxy is rotating now, based on Billion year old information?

Conservation of angular momentum is a real thing.

3 hours ago, tar said:

We are all IN the same now, so that must be our common now

IOW, your concern about the finite (and invariant) speed of light is not consistent

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Why does this matter? Sure, when we see light from a distant galaxy it was emitted in the past but there is, so far as I am aware, no suggestion the rotational behaviour of any given one is different from others at different distances, i.e. seen at different stages of the evolution of the cosmos. That being so, there is no evidence that the laws of physics have changed over time. So the problem of dark matter remains one to be solved on the basis of present day physics. Isn't it? Why then would the time the light was emitted be important?

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Why does this matter? Sure, when we see light from a distant galaxy it was emitted in the past but there is, so far as I am aware, no suggestion the rotational behaviour of any given one is different from others at different distances, i.e. seen at different stages of the evolution of the cosmos. That being so, there is no evidence that the laws of physics have changed over time. So the problem of dark matter remains one to be solved on the basis of present day physics. Isn't it? Why then would the time the light was emitted be important?

My argument is in the manner in which we decide how fast a body 100,000ly across is rotating. When you use a gravitational law to decide speed of rotation of the whole, based on the speed of one part, you are assuming the whole galaxy is within the same equation. You can contain the whole galaxy in you imagination at one time, but the galaxy itself does not operate in that fashion. One part of the galaxy is happening 100k lightyears separated from the the other end. My argument is that the extra invisible mass required to true the gradational rotation equation would not be necessary if we factor in the time it takes light and gravity from one end of the galaxy to reach the other end.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

When we had this conversation years ago, you were made to understand why there cannot be a common 'now'.
None of us have changed our minds, but you seem to have gone back to your original misunderstanding.
Obviously our 'nows' have diverged, and are not common anymore 😄.

I would like to revisit that discussion about the two nows because I came up with a mental experiment that would allow me to illustrate what I mean about the two nows.

The other month I was testing out my base256, Base Byte system and found if you arrange 8 pennies around a center point like a binary string wrapped around a center point you can represent any number between 0 and 255 by flipping the pennies, head being 1, tail being 0. Then consider another 8 pennies in the "place" to the left. ...anyway you can represent HUGE numbers to the exact unit...as each penny is worth double the previous penny. So lets say we lay out the exact number of orbits of a hydrogen election since the hydrogen emerged. 14billion years worth of orbits. EVERY hydrogen atom in the Universe is THAT old. That is how old EVERY hydrogen atom in the Universe is NOW.)

So now hypothetically, with instant communication with an observer on Alpha Proxima have the observer send us the age of hydrogen in orbits since the first Hydrogen atom using light speed communication.

Lets say the hydrogen time now, when we send the request is X. When we GET the hydrogen time from Alpha, it will be X plus 4.24years worth of hydrogen cycles here, and the age Alpha sent us would be X.

We can thusly determine Alpha is 4.24 lys from here and assume that if we ask again with our instantaneous communication for Alpha to send us the Age of Hydrogen, NOW they will send us the AGE X+4.24years worth of hydrogen ticks.

This illustrates my two NOWS. One occurring here on Earth, and the other occurring Everywhere at once.

29 minutes ago, tar said:

My argument is in the manner in which we decide how fast a body 100,000ly across is rotating. When you use a gravitational law to decide speed of rotation of the whole, based on the speed of one part, you are assuming the whole galaxy is within the same equation. You can contain the whole galaxy in you imagination at one time, but the galaxy itself does not operate in that fashion. One part of the galaxy is happening 100k lightyears separated from the the other end. My argument is that the extra invisible mass required to true the gradational rotation equation would not be necessary if we factor in the time it takes light and gravity from one end of the galaxy to reach the other end.

Oh I see. well, Doppler shift gives you a fix on the speed towards or away from you, and you can presumably do that using 2 points on opposite sides of the galaxy that are roughly equidistant from you, so the light you are using came from the galaxy at roughly the same point in time, i.e. when the galaxy was the same age.

As for gravity, it is only changes in the gravitational field which propagate at the speed of light. So since the mass stays pretty constant, the field won't be changing significantly.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Some of the galaxies we observe are oriented perpendicular to us, which simplifies the issue of light travel time. In any event, it’s a solvable issue. Spiral galaxies are rotating; the spirals are not some accident of light travel time. The thing you’re not taking into account is that we get red- and blue-shift information from spectrographic analysis, which tells us a velocity component. We can get actual rotation information.

Conservation of angular momentum is a real thing.

IOW, your concern about the finite (and invariant) speed of light is not consistent

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Some of the galaxies we observe are oriented perpendicular to us, which simplifies the issue of light travel time. In any event, it’s a solvable issue. Spiral galaxies are rotating; the spirals are not some accident of light travel time. The thing you’re not taking into account is that we get red- and blue-shift information from spectrographic analysis, which tells us a velocity component. We can get actual rotation information.

Conservation of angular momentum is a real thing.

IOW, your concern about the finite (and invariant) speed of light is not consistent

I fully accept the speed of light is finite and invariant.

Where my argument is is that the application of conservation of momentum and gravitational rotation to Galaxies may be a different problem that the application of such laws to Solar Systems BECAUSE the Galaxy is so much bigger than the solar system and it takes time for one side of the galaxy to communicate its position to the other side.

My thought is, if you factor this time lag of 100K years into the equations you might not need dark matter to true the equation.

42 minutes ago, tar said:

My argument is in the manner in which we decide how fast a body 100,000ly across is rotating. When you use a gravitational law to decide speed of rotation of the whole, based on the speed of one part, you are assuming the whole galaxy is within the same equation

Again: you are ignoring the fact that rotation speed is experimentally determined by red- and blue-shift of the spectra. Gravitation tells you the predicted speed. And yes, we assume the laws of physics apply everywhere. There are implications to assuming otherwise, which do not match with observation.

8 minutes ago, tar said:

I fully accept the speed of light is finite and invariant.

Then you must abandon any notion of “now” having meaning for things that are not co-located.

8 minutes ago, tar said:

Where my argument is is that the application of conservation of momentum and gravitational rotation to Galaxies may be a different problem that the application of such laws to Solar Systems BECAUSE the Galaxy is so much bigger than the solar system and it takes time for one side of the galaxy to communicate its position to the other side.

The laws of physics accommodate the speed of light.

Conservation of angular momentum means that an object’s rotational parameters won’t change unless there’s an external torque, so it doesn’t matter when you measure the speed. What’s your evidence thst there’s an external influence changing the speed?

8 minutes ago, tar said:

My thought is, if you factor this time lag of 100K years into the equations you might not need dark matter to true the equation.

The speed of gravity in GR is already factored in. Not that it matters; if the central mass isn’t changing, gravity is not changing, so the time lag is irrelevant. Any effect due to communicating with the “other side” is similarly constant, unless you have some evidence of mass appearing or disappearing (which violates conservation of energy).

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Oh I see. well, Doppler shift gives you a fix on the speed towards or away from you, and you can presumably do that using 2 points on opposite sides of the galaxy that are roughly equidistant from you, so the light you are using came from the galaxy at roughly the same point in time, i.e. when the galaxy was the same age.

As for gravity, it is only changes in the gravitational field which propagate at the speed of light. So since the mass stays pretty constant, the field won't be changing significantly.

14 minutes ago, tar said:

I fully accept the speed of light is finite and invariant.

Where my argument is is that the application of conservation of momentum and gravitational rotation to Galaxies may be a different problem that the application of such laws to Solar Systems BECAUSE the Galaxy is so much bigger than the solar system and it takes time for one side of the galaxy to communicate its position to the other side.

My thought is, if you factor this time lag of 100K years into the equations you might not need dark matter to true the equation.

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Oh I see. well, Doppler shift gives you a fix on the speed towards or away from you, and you can presumably do that using 2 points on opposite sides of the galaxy that are roughly equidistant from you, so the light you are using came from the galaxy at roughly the same point in time, i.e. when the galaxy was the same age.

As for gravity, it is only changes in the gravitational field which propagate at the speed of light. So since the mass stays pretty constant, the field won't be changing significantly.

well yes I get that. But we are using equations that work at Solar system scales and the gravity of various planets affects the rotational speed of the others, The length of the year is most likely affected by where Jupiter is, outside us, perpendicular to us ahead or perpendicular to us behind or opposite us, in relation to our orbit around the Sun. In a Galaxy you get this spiral pattern emerge. WHY? Is that effect built into the calculations of conservation of angular velocity? I am suggesting that there is something about the rotation of HUGE systems that is different than the rotation of just really big systems.

For instance, run this thought experiment. An alien with advanced tech turns the sun into a black hole and takes it home. How would this affect our orbit? When would we feel the first affects? 8mins later? After mins we wuuld change our orbit, still attracted to the craft holding the black hole that was our Sun. and we would try to orbit the craft being pulled toward where the craft was 8 mins ago, then 10 mins ago then 20 and so on as the craft continuied its homeward bound trip. The gravity would lessen as the distance increased, and when the craft got home we would be affected by the Sun's gravity about as much as we are currently affected by the Home Star of the alien that took our Sun. We would most likely just move in a straight line in whatever direction we where headed when the Sun was taken, plus whatever momentum we had in the direction the Sun was revolving around the center of the Galaxy.

7 minutes ago, tar said:

well yes I get that. But we are using equations that work at Solar system scales and the gravity of various planets affects the rotational speed of the others, The length of the year is most likely affected by where Jupiter is, outside us, perpendicular to us ahead or perpendicular to us behind or opposite us, in relation to our orbit around the Sun. In a Galaxy you get this spiral pattern emerge. WHY? Is that effect built into the calculations of conservation of angular velocity? I am suggesting that there is something about the rotation of HUGE systems that is different than the rotation of just really big systems.

For instance, run this thought experiment. An alien with advanced tech turns the sun into a black hole and takes it home. How would this affect our orbit? When would we feel the first affects? 8mins later? After mins we wuuld change our orbit, still attracted to the craft holding the black hole that was our Sun. and we would try to orbit the craft being pulled toward where the craft was 8 mins ago, then 10 mins ago then 20 and so on as the craft continuied its homeward bound trip. The gravity would lessen as the distance increased, and when the craft got home we would be affected by the Sun's gravity about as much as we are currently affected by the Home Star of the alien that took our Sun. We would most likely just move in a straight line in whatever direction we where headed when the Sun was taken, plus whatever momentum we had in the direction the Sun was revolving around the center of the Galaxy.

Your alien scenario is not possible in reality though. Mass and energy can be interconverted but their gravitational effect is the same. There is no known mechanism by which gravity can be suddenly switched off, reduced or increased.

But if you are just suggesting there is something different about gravitation at very large scales, that sounds like the avenue being pursued by the MOND theories, which are one attempt to account for "dark matter" observations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

Edited August 31Aug 31 by exchemist

I did not switch off the Sun's gravity. I reduced it to the size of a walnut put it in a craft and moved it. I is a thought experiment. If such happened, how would the motion of the Earth, within the galaxy be affected?

More importantly for the discussion, according to the laws of physics, WHEN would the resultant gravitational changes reach Earth? Hypothetically, speaking. Just to establish how the change in position of masses at huge distances affects the local gravity fields.

My goal here is not to abandon physics. Not at all. I am looking to explain the rotation of distant galaxies without using Dark Matter. (other than dust and non luminous objects)

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Your alien scenario is not possible in reality though. Mass and energy can be interconverted but their gravitational effect is the same. There is no known mechanism by which gravity can be suddenly switched off, reduced or increased.

It is NOT impossible to consider this thought experiment. We have at least one black hole in the Galzaxy and huge masses are moving along with us around the center of the galaxy at various speeds. Elements in one spiral arem outside or inside our arm might exert more gravitation force on us than similar objects in our own arm very close to the center or out near the tip of our arm. Understanding the rotation of a Galaxy is NOT the same problem as understanding rotational dynamics in the lab or in the solar system.

I am also approaching this from a philosophical point of view. What we see happening in a distant galaxy is NOT what that Galaxy is doing now. Its old news.. We have NO way to know what is going on in that area of space right now. We wont know for a billion years, at which point that area of space would have advanced ANOTHER Billion years. So in reality, it will NEVER affect us more than it is affecting us now, so for all intents and purposes, what we see is happening now, for us. Philosophically speaking you cannot know what the Universese will be doing in 300 billion years, because there is no way to ever know what the entire universe is doing at the moment. One can speculate, but no way to verify what the universee will eveen "look" like in 300B years much less say what configuration all its components will be in in 300billion years.

This is the philosophical angle I am approaching this dark matter issue from. If you need to make up an imaginary substance to account for the observed rotation of a distant galaxy. as a scientist, I would think you might search instead for a logical answer, using everything you already know about the place. If dark matter exists in distant galaxies it should exist here as well. If it exists here, someone would have noticed it before. If it effects rotational characteristics of distant Galaxies it should affect OURS TOO. We should have some within our Heliopause. If we can't find it here, maybe it doesn't exist. In which case we need a different reason to explain the apparent and calculated rotation of a distant galaxy based on the red shift of super novas. I am suggesting we add some term in our angular momentum calculations that includes the lag time of gravitationl force over distances on the order of 10s of thousands of lightyears. If no term is currently in the equation, the equation is likely faulty. In my estimation.

19 minutes ago, tar said:

I did not switch off the Sun's gravity. I reduced it to the size of a walnut put it in a craft and moved it. I is a thought experiment. If such happened, how would the motion of the Earth, within the galaxy be affected?

More importantly for the discussion, according to the laws of physics, WHEN would the resultant gravitational changes reach Earth? Hypothetically, speaking. Just to establish how the change in position of masses at huge distances affects the local gravity fields.

My goal here is not to abandon physics. Not at all. I am looking to explain the rotation of distant galaxies without using Dark Matter. (other than dust and non luminous objects)

It is NOT impossible to consider this thought experiment. We have at least one black hole in the Galzaxy and huge masses are moving along with us around the center of the galaxy at various speeds. Elements in one spiral arem outside or inside our arm might exert more gravitation force on us than similar objects in our own arm very close to the center or out near the tip of our arm. Understanding the rotation of a Galaxy is NOT the same problem as understanding rotational dynamics in the lab or in the solar system.

But none of the processes you mention suddenly change the amount of mass/energy present. So there will not be any sudden change in the gravitational field to propagate outward at c. You can certainly get gravitational waves of course, due to large masses in relative motion, and waves these propagate at c, but the effect of them is very small. No one has been able to attribute the anomalous rotation curves of galaxies to any such effect.

If you think otherwise it is up to you do the maths to show what all these astronomers have missed, not just wave your hands.

Thread. Philosophically speaking, I am saying that the equation modeling the rotation of distant galaxies is NOT returning the results witnessed.

When your model of reality does not match reality you have two choices. Change reality or change your model.

I vote for change your model.

I saw the other day scientists are suggesting there is a parallel universe running backward in time that would explain dark energy. REALLY?

How far down the wrong path are you guys willing to go?

At some point you begin to look plain silly.

I am trying to throw you guys a lifeline here.

Instead of entertaining my idea and looking for a time lag adjustment to the equations you just keep doubling down with this dark matter, dark energy crap. You are just digging your hole deeper. You are not doing science.

here is another possible source of the required mass. I just thought of it when I mentioned the Heliopause. There is a whole lot of particles that go out on waves of energy from the Sun that seem to congregate in the area of space affected by the waves coming in from the neighboring stars. If each star has this shell of "Sea Foam", how much mass would that add?

Information, including cause and effect, travels at the finite speed of light.
You cannot have the same 'now' as an event 1 light year away, for another year.
You can always do the 'back calculation', but that is not the same thing.

There is no global now.
Even a local now is an approximation.

Stop confusing yourself with your thought experiments.
( incidentally, pennies are binary, having two states, so binary notation is 2ⁿ, where n is the number of pennies.
Anyone who grew up in the early days of computers knows about the address space relation to bit length )

Well consider vectors then. Any rotational equation would include all the vectors of the force all the masses apply on all the others.

Are the vectors pointing in the right direction? If all the mass is considered in a static position at a particular moment in time, you have two potential error causes, Each objects gravity might be considered coming from a position it no longer is in and various models and equations and averages might by using different assumptions, averaging apples to oranges.

And the various components that average in to equation might be different Distances from the target mass. Meaning their gravity, in terms of their angular relationship with the target might not be coming from the assumed vector.

38 minutes ago, tar said:

I am suggesting that there is something about the rotation of HUGE systems that is different than the rotation of just really big systems.

With no evidence to support the suggestion, other than the huge systems. Because GR keeps passing all the tests. MOND, for example, explains the rotation curves, but fails to explain things like gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation and redshift, Shapiro time delay, and more. And dark matter explains more than rotation curves.

more detail here

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-94-could-dark-matter-not-exist-de5cd810e446

perhaps gravity from a star arrives on Earth at the same moment that the light from the star arrives, so one can assume the vector in the noted position, but whan looking at a distant Galaxy the Gravity from one observed star "got to" the other observed stars a billion years ago. The apparent vectors no longer apply. We get or vector information now but all the masses in the distant gallacy did NOT get their gravity from all the other stars at the same isnstant. It took time.

47 minutes ago, tar said:

Thread. Philosophically speaking, I am saying that the equation modeling the rotation of distant galaxies is NOT returning the results witnessed.

Yes, it is.

47 minutes ago, tar said:

When your model of reality does not match reality you have two choices. Change reality or change your model.

I vote for change your model.

I saw the other day scientists are suggesting there is a parallel universe running backward in time that would explain dark energy. REALLY?

How far down the wrong path are you guys willing to go?

At some point you begin to look plain silly.

I am trying to throw you guys a lifeline here.

What lifeline? All I see is argument from incredulity.

47 minutes ago, tar said:

Instead of entertaining my idea and looking for a time lag adjustment to the equations you just keep doubling down with this dark matter, dark energy crap. You are just digging your hole deeper. You are not doing science.

See above comment on MOND.

Any new explanation has to cover what we already know. “Adjust your equations” doesn’t even begin to address anything, because the devil's in the details. The adjustments can’t break what already works.

2 minutes ago, tar said:

perhaps gravity from a star arrives on Earth at the same moment that the light from the star arrives,

Have you compared your ideas with observations such as GW170817? the merger happened 140 million light years away.

On 2017 August 17 a binary neutron star coalescence candidate (later designated GW170817) with merger time

12:41:04 UTC was observed through gravitational waves by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. The

Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor independently detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) with a time delay of

1.7 s~ with respect to the merger time.

https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0145/P1700294/007/ApJL-MMAP-171017.pdf

Edited August 31Aug 31 by Ghideon

45 minutes ago, tar said:

Thread. Philosophically speaking, I am saying that the equation modeling the rotation of distant galaxies is NOT returning the results witnessed.

When your model of reality does not match reality you have two choices. Change reality or change your model.

I vote for change your model.

I saw the other day scientists are suggesting there is a parallel universe running backward in time that would explain dark energy. REALLY?

How far down the wrong path are you guys willing to go?

At some point you begin to look plain silly.

I am trying to throw you guys a lifeline here.

Instead of entertaining my idea and looking for a time lag adjustment to the equations you just keep doubling down with this dark matter, dark energy crap. You are just digging your hole deeper. You are not doing science.

here is another possible source of the required mass. I just thought of it when I mentioned the Heliopause. There is a whole lot of particles that go out on waves of energy from the Sun that seem to congregate in the area of space affected by the waves coming in from the neighboring stars. If each star has this shell of "Sea Foam", how much mass would that add?

Changing the model is exactly what is being pursued, both through MOND and through extensions to particle physics.

Waving your hands with woolly notions of some time lag phenomenon that you have not even described coherently, let alone modelled mathematically, does not really help.

What, exactly, are you proposing, please? Describe it clearly and show how the rotation curves can thereby be accounted for.

6 minutes ago, tar said:

perhaps gravity from a star arrives on Earth at the same moment that the light from the star arrives, so one can assume the vector in the noted position, but whan looking at a distant Galaxy the Gravity from one observed star "got to" the other observed stars a billion years ago. The apparent vectors no longer apply. We get or vector information now but all the masses in the distant gallacy did NOT get their gravity from all the other stars at the same isnstant. It took time.

Doesn’t matter in steady-state, since gravity isn’t changing.