Galaxy dynamics explained without DM or MOND

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adrian59
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamics Galaxy mond
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
1 reply · 3K views
Adrian59
Messages
210
Reaction score
30
I have been working on a discovery that could explain galaxy rotation curve without dark matter or modification of Newtonian dynamics. However, I was unable to make any comment within this forum since this was unpublished work. However, the same discovery has been made independently by Kenneth F Nicholson (astro-ph/0309762 v2) and Dilip G. Banhatti (arXiv:0806.1131v4). I found these references in an article by James T. Dwyer entitled, ‘Inappropriate Application of Kepler’s Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem – Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter’, (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Dwyer/publication). These two papers explain the flat or sometimes rising galaxy rotational velocities using the baryonic matter known to be present in a galaxy, thereby eliminating the need for exotic matter or any modification of known physics.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Adrian59 said:
However, I was unable to make any comment within this forum since this was unpublished work.
This is one of our most basic rules.
Adrian59 said:
However, the same discovery has been made independently by Kenneth F Nicholson (astro-ph/0309762 v2) and Dilip G. Banhatti (arXiv:0806.1131v4).
Which are - as far as I could see - also unpublished w.r.t. a scientific journal. Furthermore, there haven't even been endorsements of the two papers.
Adrian59 said:
I found these references in an article by James T. Dwyer entitled, ‘Inappropriate Application of Kepler’s Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem
Which is a thesis, i.e. required to be published.

We do not want to open the gates for all kind of personal theories, so I close this thread.

The two papers you mentioned are roughly ten years old, which is a long time to seek a publication opportunity. The fact, that they weren't make me think, that they've failed several professional review processes which is more than we can provide.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd, jim mcnamara, Vanadium 50 and 1 other person