Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 73832922" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>Since the now infamous bullet cluster study, there have been numerous problems demonstrated in the baryonic mass estimation techniques which were used in that 2006 paper based upon luminosity. It's therefore not a shocking surprise that the gravitational lensing mass estimates didn't agree with the flawed mass estimation technique based on luminosity.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately no attempt has ever been made by the mainstream to *minimize* the need for exotic matter based strictly on galaxy rotation predictions. Why? Because they can't change the percentages of exotic matter in the LCDM without upsetting the entire apple cart on the CMB claims.</p><p></p><p>That's the *only* reason they agree. They agree because they *have* to agree. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Dark matter is a hypothetical entity. It makes no predictions related to counter rotation of galaxies. It's physical descriptions change from paper to paper, and it *still* makes no predictions about counter rotation. </p><p></p><p>Worse still, It's not even compatible with the standard model of particle physics. It's also stuck inside of a cosmology model that violates the conservation of energy laws on a cosmic scale.</p><p></p><p>MOND theory doesn't address or predict counter rotation observations either. It requires a modification to Newtonian equations, which then must be married to a GR based cosmology model?</p><p></p><p>Neither of those two options is particularly compelling with respect to working well with other branches of science.</p><p></p><p>The Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is fully compatible with the standard model of particle physics. That's certainly a more attractive option in terms of working well with other branches of science.</p><p></p><p>More importantly, it makes incredibly unique, and highly unusual 'counter rotation' predictions compared to either the MOND model or the dark matter model. This offer us an opportunity to "test" all three models and potentially falsify the Birkeland current model.</p><p></p><p>All the galaxy rotation models are potentially capable of explaining the rotation *speeds alone* of any given galaxy. MOND theory doesn't explain the bullet cluster paper, but many flaws in the baryonic mass estimation techniques make that a moot point IMO. Only one of the three models can and does explain counter rotation features as well, including even potentially complex counter rotation processes.</p><p></p><p>Most importantly, the Birkeland current model is based *exclusively* upon Maxwell's equations and the physical principles described in and by those equations. It "better" explains the whole range of galaxy rotation patterns, including counter rotation patterns.</p><p></p><p>Neither of the other two galaxy rotation models predicts counter rotation, so the only logical choice of a clear winner is the model that is compatible with the standard model of particle physics, based entirely upon Maxwell's equations, and which naturally predicts galaxy counter rotation.</p><p></p><p>We even have observations of complex counter rotation occurring at the poles of Jupiter, so the Birkeland current model is scale-able to many orders of magnitude.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 73832922, member: 627"] Since the now infamous bullet cluster study, there have been numerous problems demonstrated in the baryonic mass estimation techniques which were used in that 2006 paper based upon luminosity. It's therefore not a shocking surprise that the gravitational lensing mass estimates didn't agree with the flawed mass estimation technique based on luminosity. Unfortunately no attempt has ever been made by the mainstream to *minimize* the need for exotic matter based strictly on galaxy rotation predictions. Why? Because they can't change the percentages of exotic matter in the LCDM without upsetting the entire apple cart on the CMB claims. That's the *only* reason they agree. They agree because they *have* to agree. :) Dark matter is a hypothetical entity. It makes no predictions related to counter rotation of galaxies. It's physical descriptions change from paper to paper, and it *still* makes no predictions about counter rotation. Worse still, It's not even compatible with the standard model of particle physics. It's also stuck inside of a cosmology model that violates the conservation of energy laws on a cosmic scale. MOND theory doesn't address or predict counter rotation observations either. It requires a modification to Newtonian equations, which then must be married to a GR based cosmology model? Neither of those two options is particularly compelling with respect to working well with other branches of science. The Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is fully compatible with the standard model of particle physics. That's certainly a more attractive option in terms of working well with other branches of science. More importantly, it makes incredibly unique, and highly unusual 'counter rotation' predictions compared to either the MOND model or the dark matter model. This offer us an opportunity to "test" all three models and potentially falsify the Birkeland current model. All the galaxy rotation models are potentially capable of explaining the rotation *speeds alone* of any given galaxy. MOND theory doesn't explain the bullet cluster paper, but many flaws in the baryonic mass estimation techniques make that a moot point IMO. Only one of the three models can and does explain counter rotation features as well, including even potentially complex counter rotation processes. Most importantly, the Birkeland current model is based *exclusively* upon Maxwell's equations and the physical principles described in and by those equations. It "better" explains the whole range of galaxy rotation patterns, including counter rotation patterns. Neither of the other two galaxy rotation models predicts counter rotation, so the only logical choice of a clear winner is the model that is compatible with the standard model of particle physics, based entirely upon Maxwell's equations, and which naturally predicts galaxy counter rotation. We even have observations of complex counter rotation occurring at the poles of Jupiter, so the Birkeland current model is scale-able to many orders of magnitude. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.
Top
Bottom