I Bullet Cluster explained without 'dark substances'

Delisso
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Mass distribution in Bullet Cluster has an explanation without dark matter. The Supermassive black holes would accumulate at the edges of collision.
The Bullet Cluster counts as 'smoking gun' for the dark matter. But what lacks in these calculations is the super massive black holes at the center of almost every galaxy. As the most massive and most compact objects in the collision, it's expected that they are less slowed down by the collision than gas and stars. As a result they will accumulate at the edges of the colliding clusters. Super massive black holes are expected to create the observed weak gravitational lensing.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Space news on Phys.org
BulletClusterAugmented.png


A distribution different from that would be weird.
 
Delisso said:
Summary:: Mass distribution in Bullet Cluster has an explanation without dark matter. The Supermassive black holes would accumulate at the edges of collision.

The Bullet Cluster counts as 'smoking gun' for the dark matter. But what lacks in these calculations is the super massive black holes at the center of almost every galaxy. As the most massive and most compact objects in the collision, it's expected that they are less slowed down by the collision than gas and stars. As a result they will accumulate at the edges of the colliding clusters. Super massive black holes are expected to create the observed weak gravitational lensing.
Interesting, but you need to give a reference (or references) for research on this.
 
Supermassive black holes constitute only a tiny fraction of a galaxy’s mass (estimated as a few parts per million in the case of the Milky Way for example). Thus, your explanation is dead on arrival.

You are also missing any actual scientific reference and therefore in possible violation of forum rules.
 
Orodruin said:
Supermassive black holes constitute only a tiny fraction of a galaxy’s mass (estimated as a few parts per million in the case of the Milky Way for example). Thus, your explanation is dead on arrival.

You are also missing any actual scientific reference and therefore in possible violation of forum rules.
1- The mass distribution attributed to the galaxy is calculated with the assumption that dark matter exist. It's not the real mass.
2- A supermassive black hole will land outside of the gas and stars as they are not slowed down by other material. Their momentum is enormous.
3- The supermassive black holes would create weak lensing.

These 3 points combined easily explain the picture without assuming dark things.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin
It does not. Visible mass means gas and stars. Offset is caused by black holes' accumulation out of the visible matter.
 
Delisso said:
1- The mass distribution attributed to the galaxy is calculated with the assumption that dark matter exist. It's not the real mass.
2- A supermassive black hole will land outside of the gas and stars as they are not slowed down by other material. Their momentum is enormous.
3- The supermassive black holes would create weak lensing.

These 3 points combined easily explain the picture without assuming dark things.
As @PeroK has already pointed out, your references do not make these claims. Indeed, they say the evidence shows that there is dark matter. They certainly do not say that supermassive black holes can account for the data without assuming dark matter.

Do you have any references that support the claims you are making about supermassive black holes being able to account for the data without assuming dark matter?
 
  • #10
Delisso said:
These 3 points combined easily explain the picture without assuming dark things.
These are very strong claims that would need detailed mathematical modelling to back them up. Where is this published?
 
  • #11
I'm objecting these papers.

The logic is easy: Accept the solution with the least assumptions.

Facts:
1- Supermassive black holes would accumulate at the end of the collision
2- Supermassive black holes would cause weak lensing.

These 2 facts are enough to explain the observed phenomena.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
  • #12
Ibix said:
These are very strong claims that would need detailed mathematical modelling to back them up. Where is this published?
Do it. I'm throwing it here exactly for that reason.
 
  • #13
Delisso said:
Do it.
Not what this forum is for. Do it yourself and publish it - then we can talk.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #14
I'm not writing papers.
 
  • Haha
Likes PeroK
  • #15
Delisso said:
1- The mass distribution attributed to the galaxy is calculated with the assumption that dark matter exist. It's not the real mass.
The ratio of normal mass to dark matter is not that large. Even if you allow for a factor of 1000 (which is waaaay too much), you would still be another factor of 1000 away from the supermassive black hole even being close to the galaxy mass. Your ”explanation” simply does not stand up to basic scrutiny because you just don’t know the most basic of facts related to this subject.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and phinds
  • #16
To add to that, black holes would constitute so called MACHOs, which have been largely ruled out as an explanation for dark matter.
 
  • #17
Delisso said:
Do it. I'm throwing it here exactly for that reason.
That's not what this forum is for.

Delisso said:
I'm not writing papers.
Then we're not discussing your personal theory.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Motore, Bystander and PeroK
Back
Top