Bullet Cluster explained without 'dark substances'

[Delisso]

TL;DR

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.

 

[Delisso]

A distribution different from that would be weird.

 

[George Jones]

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.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

 

[Delisso]

Interesting, but you need to give a reference (or references) for research on this.

These are the papers https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0312273.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608408.pdf

 

[Delisso]

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.

 

[PeroK]

These are the papers https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0312273.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608408.pdf

The first paper directly contradicts what you claim it says. From the Abstract:

The observed offsets of the lensing mass peaks from the peaks of the dominant visible mass
component (the X-ray gas) directly demonstrate the presence, and dominance, of dark matter in this
cluster.

 

[Delisso]

It does not. Visible mass means gas and stars. Offset is caused by black holes' accumulation out of the visible matter.

 

[PeterDonis]

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?

 

[Ibix]

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?

 

[Delisso]

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.

 

[Delisso]

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.

 

[Ibix]

Do it.

Not what this forum is for. Do it yourself and publish it - then we can talk.

 

[Delisso]

I'm not writing papers.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

 

[Orodruin]

To add to that, black holes would constitute so called MACHOs, which have been largely ruled out as an explanation for dark matter.

 

[PeterDonis]

Do it. I'm throwing it here exactly for that reason.

That's not what this forum is for.

I'm not writing papers.

Then we're not discussing your personal theory.

Thread closed.