That leaves bar spirals without explanation – there should be more gravity along the bars, but the data don’t match that.
Why? Not all galaxies behave as though dark matter is present. That’s the big thorn in the side of alternative gravity theories: none apply to all observed galaxies, whereas dark matter does.
No, that requires the assumption that it’s evenly distributed.
I’ve never seen any material about that. I’m going to be lazy and ask ChatGPT.
Huh – it says there IS evidence for dark matter in the solar system, perhaps as much as 45% of the total (!), and that’s a “low density”.
According to ChatGPT, NASA’s figure say that for the amount of dark matter estimated to be in the solar system, the expected deviation in the course of a craft such as Voyager would be on the order of 2cm per AU. We can’t measure that!
Good point – when inside an arbitrarily large cloud of evenly distributed material, the gravitational effect approaches zero.
It strikes me that you have a wonderful set of notions to use in the foundational background for a space opera type novel.
If I squint at that just right it sounds like when physicist say c is a matter of the geometry of the universe.
Geometric? or what? and measuring what – mass? energy? does vacuum energy count?
Which is no different than the maximum rate at which effects from events can propagate. But since most things move at much less than c, most change doesn’t propagate that fast.
Can’t be – the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light.
Scale. A basketful of corn dust in a silo is barely noticeable, but take that same density and continue it across an entire county and it shuts down visibility fairly quickly. Or walk on a beach with a faint mist that you can’t even tell is there when looking at your outstretched hand, but look farther and at fifty meters it may as well be a wall of white.
Sure you can – it’s a matter or distribution and scale.
You would not only have to have measured the “configuration change per Planck time interval” to be ~1.619e-35, which you don’t seem to know how to do, you’d have had to measure it inaccurately by exactly the amount necessary to enable your 2 sig. fig. approximation of the Planck interval to produce a value for light speed accurate to 9 sig. fig.
That’s not credible.
What you actually did was present the measured speed of light as the ‘result’ of a non-existent calculation.
That’s just assuming your conclusion. Circular reasoning.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
65
Note: The Structure Score serves as a proxy for latent memory (M_latent) and coherence in the Fabric framework. Higher structure > more “activated memory” > flatter rotation curves.
Gravity as Memory Gradient
g = k ∇M
-∇M reflects both active and latent memory, approximated here by structure.
-Higher structure > stronger local coherence > flatter rotation curves.
Effective Mass (Proxy via Structure)
M_eff(r) ~ M_visible(r) + α·Structure_Score
-α is a scaling factor; exact latent memory unknown.
-Flat rotation curves emerge naturally from higher Structure_Score.
Falsifiable Prediction
-If Fabric is correct: Structure (geometry + resonance) predicts rotation curves; mass is secondary.
-If Dark Matter is necessary: Mass predicts rotation curves, structure irrelevant.
Again, recommendation is to study the equations. Even if my equations are not the final ones discovered. I expect you’ll be seeing someone else discovering these equations. And I expect within 10 years, physics textbooks will be altered significantly. Now on to Chemistry and the music of the spheres for my next post. How do you think Chemistry is re-described under Fabric?
What you appear to be saying: “I have a quantitative framework that predicts galaxy rotation curves based on ‘structure’ instead of dark matter.”
What you’re actually doing: You’ve noticed that spiral galaxies (which look structured) tend to have flat rotation curves, while elliptical galaxies (which look smooth) have declining curves. From this well-known correlation, you’ve invented the term “Structure Score” and claimed this explains everything.
The fundamental problems:
“Structure Score” is completely undefined. Is it spiral arm pitch angle? Bar strength? Surface brightness profile? Star formation rate? You literally don’t specify what you’re measuring.
Your equations are meaningless. M_eff(r) ~ M_visible(r) + α·Structure_Score and Rotation_Flatness = α + β·Structure_Score + γ·log(Mass) + ε contain multiple undefined variables with no units, no measurement protocols, and no physical basis.
You’re taking credit for discovering something that’s been known for decades. The correlation between galaxy morphology and rotation curve shape is textbook astrophysics.
This is like saying “I notice red cars go fast and blue cars go slow, therefore I’ve discovered ‘color energy gradients’ that explain motion and we don’t need engines.”
David, your confusion about why you can’t get published isn’t because of scientific conspiracies - it’s because this genuinely isn’t coherent enough to constitute a scientific hypothesis.
You are now back to racking up points on Baez’s index. Try to tone down the overconfidence a bit.
What I posted up there was a prototype and I noted that clearly: the structure score was generalized. At least it wasn’t an insulting index. I built that just yesterday for the folks interested in this thread. I know it’s not paper-worthy. I cranked it out in 1 hour! Geez Louise.
Communities of people of faith (which is what this is) are supposed to be places where people can genuinely bounce ideas off of each other. How else will science ever advance or humanity if we don’t listen and critique properly.
There are two articles I’ve tried to get endorsements on and they have nothing to do with this topic. It’s just about Saturn’s hexagon. Well researched. Data is solid. Math is sound. But I just don’t have any connections. And that’s OK. The other one would be more classed in the information theory category.
A forum is a place to bounce ideas. Generally, what I’ve heard from you all is you’re wrong and light-to-heavy insults. Can we stop that. There’s a reason why people insult others and it’s usually because they uncomfortable.
As a teacher, what I do for my students is guide them. For my friends, kids, and my wife, I guide them. I look into what they provide and I FIND what is good and focus on that.
What I am proposing is HIGHLY speculative. I have confidence, because I have applied these ideas across the scale and am continually amazed. They provide strong solutions many known anomalies I have dug deep and have generally not been able to falsify much of it. But as you know, I don’t have a lab and don’t have access to the array of data really needed.
The challenge is still open. Take the time and study the entire list of equations or paste them into an LLM, and ask, “What on Earth does this mean?” “What does this mean for…?” I expect you might be blown away.
So, here’s my new challenge for you. Name one puzzling anomaly of science: ANY. And I’ll provide a falsifiable and testable hypothesis for the phenomena based on these equations.
David, for me, nothing you said makes sense. I cannot follow any of your made up equations as they don’t correspond to real physical quantities we can measure or quantify. For example, as I said in the last post which seems like you just brushed off:
Those are some things that real real astrophysicists study and quantify and use in their models to describe the properties of galaxies. If you think you can explain the structure of galaxies better than all of these real physical quantities that have real things astrophysicists can measure and calculate, then you need to define what the structure thing actually is and how we measure it or calculate it.
If nobody here can understand what your terms are really supposed to mean, and you keep bulldozing over any possible criticisms of your ideas, then isn’t that a sign you’re doing something wrong? Instead you are imagining and proclaiming:
Okay great. Cool. Do it. But it’s not going to happen with poorly defined things like a galaxy structure score while ignoring real things astrophysicists study like those mentioned above.
Finally when you say,
I don’t think you know quite what this means. Because before you wrote:
You aren’t predicting rotation curves. You’re trying to fit this imaginary concept of structure to existing data. And in your mind, this geometry and resonance phenomena are going to be the main determining factors in Galaxy rotation curves in this model. What geometry is that? Is that something we can measure? What real physical quantities does the geometry or structure refer to? If it’s not something real that we can measure or see, then how could it be used to explain any rotation curves besides just being an exercise in post-hoc data fitting? I also would say for a fact you don’t understand very much about Galaxy structure research. Why would any physicist say that structure is irrelevant and by structure I mean the actual visible distribution of matter and measured distribution of dark matter in a galaxy? In all of the Galaxy structure and formation research, there are so many physical quantities that are well measured and well defined as if astrophysicists are only considering the mass of a galaxy as the only factor. That’s absurd and a straw man.
