What hold galaxies together?

Discussion in 'Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics' started by Sailor Al, Aug 3, 2022.

  1. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    There is no anger or malice in my post, you are creating a narrative where there is none..why..no idea?
    Go figure..

    "......The answer is that the thing at the centre of a galaxy is not a Black Hole at all. It is the centre of the vortex where the fluid of the galaxy is being swept into the 4th dimension......"

    And your proof of this argument is where..?
    Please show me the what this "fluid" is..what is it made of, where does it come from...what is 'sweeping' this fluid, please explain to me where this "force" to 'sweep' this fluid is coming from..etc etc
    Once you have done that, if indeed you can, then please present it to a scientifically peer reviewed journal for verification of your argument.

    If you are able to support your claims, and verified by independent scientists and able to publish your opine as a "theory"...then perhaps, we have the basis for a debate.
    Otherwise, it is an opine based on poppycock.
    QED.
     
  2. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    As @Doug Halsey pointed out, SVT is not a fluid dynamics theory. SVT has nothing to do with Dark Matter.The theory developed as I was thinking about vortices. And yes, the theory does invoke galaxies as vortices.
     
  3. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    Just as there is no way to prove a negative, similarly there is no way to prove a theory. Throughout the history of science, theories have come and gone. The ones that endure are those that are not disproven.
    Take another look at the theory, I think all your questions are covered.
    By all means, point out its logical flaws or factual errors.
    And BTW, I have “published” it, that’s where you are reading it. And this forum is my tentative attempt to get a peer review.
     
  4. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    That's a no then.
    You prefer to keep opining, rather than providing proof to the scientific community, of said claims/theory.
    Just as any scientist and indeed anyone who is wanting their theory to be proven would want to be published, but you elect to discuss in a smokey bar with no one listening anymore...
     
  5. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    Again, you are missing the point. I am not “wanting my theory to be proven”. I am hoping to a) get it shot down ON ITS OWN MERITS or b) replaced with a better one or c) get it considered as a possible answer. You are not addressing any of these.
     
  6. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Respectively, yet again it is YOU that is missing the point.

    If you wish to ascertain/formulate a theory or a claim, is it YOU that must provide the proof/evidence to support such a claim/theory.
    If you are unable to, as it seems it the case, it is NOTHING other than an opine for the sake of verbal diarrhoea...

    Nothing can be "shot down" - as you assert -without you providing evidence of your proof.
    ergo..it is just a waste of band width.

    I look forward to reading your theory in any scientific peer reviewed journal...
     
  7. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    I have provided around 20 paragraphs of argument supporting my theory. https://www.gpsanimator.com/dark_matter/
    That is my evidence.
    Shoot it down, present a better one or discuss. Don’t stand outside and hurl rocks.
     
  8. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Wow...you really do not get it do it?

    The attached link is NOT evidence, it is just verbose musing, nothing else.

    Ok...seems i shall have to explain.
    What is a theory?...well, it is a very precisely and well structured series of words that most likely explain what we can observe, such as a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world.
    In doing so, we draw together many facts based upon said observation.
    Theories eventually become more accepted, or some might say stronger, as they explain more facts and behaviour etc.

    So, what is a fact...is an indisputable observation.

    Thus, what have you observed, that is indisputable?..nothing.
    What have you presented that even resembles facts or observations... nothing.
    If there are no facts we cannot make predictions of what what the theory predicts, i.e there is no theory.

    The problem is in definitions.
    Since most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or thought - just as you are doing! But in science/engineering the word 'theory' refers to the way that we observe/interpret facts.

    An often quoted axiom is this: "...Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change..."

    Thus, in summary, to be a scientific theory, a person, will make an observation and devise a hypothesis to explain that observation.
    And then what usually occurs is that they will create or design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

    What have you done.. nothing.
    Just endless words.
     
  9. latestarter
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 402
    Likes: 51, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 233
    Location: N.W. England

    latestarter Senior Member

    On August 4 you started this thread. Your OP ended
    "I know this is the Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics forum, but this idea arose from the consideration of the aerodynamics of sail and I don't know of a forum on cosmology, and I'm keen to get some views on the subject, so this is where I have started."
    my added emphasis.

    On the same day I replied.
    3 months on have you had any traction in the cosmology community?

    This a bit like using a tennis match to decide who will play prop forward in a rugby game. ;)

    PS Thank you for your thread on swept volume theory, I learnt a lot from those with whom you were arguing.
     
  10. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,790
    Likes: 1,714, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Theories can only be disproved by facts. Arguments don't do it. Further, theories are not based on arguments. That is called rhetoric. A theory explains an observed fact or behavior. Black matter theory explains observed facts.
     
  11. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    I would like to point out that all of these examples are still referred to as theories that simply supplanted previous theories. Even the speed limit of light is still a theoretical limit. It has been consistently observed, but no explanation as to why light speed is as fast as anything can travel has been accepted as a scientific law. The trouble comes when science writers, and consequently the rest of the populace, begin stating these working theories as law. Darwin's theory of evolution is still theory because he took one extra step from the tautology that Survival of the Fittest is, and added the element of random mutation. Otherwise, the survival of the fittest is as obvious as the law of Supply and Demand.

    I had a conversation with a chemist, who was a devoted atheist, about the possible explanations for existence, that may or may not include a God. When I pointed to the apparent paradox of the impossible beginning of the Universe, he said, "We know how the Universe began. That's settled science."

    Settled? Should science ever be settled? And, how does giving an event that is mere speculation, a name, such as Singularity, bring us to a settled science? I would think it would remain obvious to all, that we call things 'Singularity' or 'Dark Matter', precisely because we want everyone to know that it isn't settled, that we only know there is something, but we don't know what that something is.

    My physics professor got upset with the title of an electronic physics course because it was named E=MC. He took exception to the absence of the Squared factor. If C = the speed of light and the speed of light is a constant, then so is C². Thus, in a math formulary C² can be expressed as c=the constant, C². Yet, we don't say that. We say E=MC². I presume to retain the origins of that value. The point is, sometimes we become so comfortable with what we believe we know, that we forget that we don't really "KNOW" it.

    -Will
     
  12. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    I'm still looking for a cosmology forum that is as active as this one. I couldn't find one which wasn't obscured with advertising or fragmented beyond belief. I would welcome any guidance you could provide.
    It appears this thread has become bogged down in arguments about Philosophy: facts, theories, proof, evidence... way off topic?
    Nice use of sarcasm. Noted.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2022
  13. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    Not at all. You are getting a very considerate collection of views on the subject, as far as a group of well educated, non-cosmologists can give.

    The difficulty here is in the words and presentation. Many people get picky about the language, as would any peer review would be. When presenting an arguement (the rhetoric) one of the first things that needs to be done is establish the common understanding of definitions. From your original post, you refer to the galaxies as,
    You also talk about different scale or sized dimensions. Are you defining the spacial dimensions as having a scale or are you using dimension to mean the measurements of the object?
    The vortex idea seems simple enough on its own. Galaxies appear to be vortexes. But what is super colossal scale? You go on to partially explain what you mean,
    In the above quote, you offer an idea, or is this a scientifically accepted fact?

    You have said nothing here that leads, logically, to this statement.

    We are to follow your logic that a multi dimensional sink into the fourth dimension means no need for "dark matter" or super colossal black holes.

    I like your thinking. I love the idea of it, but you are not offering an arguement for proof, only presenting an idea. This is a what if paper without the supporting science to draw your conclusions from.

    You are confused about the direction this thread has turned. It hasn't turned. You are getting a very good critique of how to present an idea for the development of a future hypothesis.

    When you make an assertion, don't let it stand on the foundation of an idea that may be fully formed in your mind, walk is through the reasons and the facts that led to your idea. Why does a vortex into a fourth dimension make more sense? How does that relate, or why is it different than local gravity of a star or a planet? You do understand that your analogy to a tornado involves the movement into AND out of the vortex within the single medium of fluid. Why is a galactic vortex not the same?

    Please keep up the fight, I'm enjoying this exercise. Just keep in mind, you are trying to convince people who are appropriately difficult to convince. That is going to be your audience everywhere, especially in the scientific community. Rigor is required. If you don't get the response you are looking for, consider it may be for reasons other than the nature of the respondent. Not all of us can be eloquent enough to say what we really mean, on the first attempt,concisely.

    By the way, if there is no philosophy surrounding the thinking, it's just a formula.

    -Will
     
  14. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,790
    Likes: 1,714, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Science is a philosophical construct. It is based on a method that needs some assumptions to be true. For example, that the laws of physics are Universal.
     
    Will Gilmore likes this.

  15. Milehog
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 571
    Likes: 121, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: NW

    Milehog Clever Quip

    Infinite universes of infinity or maybe just foam swirling down a cosmic drain, and we get Sailor Al.

    Meanwhile I'm off to argue stoichiometric combustion on an arborists forum.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.