06 Nov 11
Colliding galaxies help support my theory I call, "The True Map of the Universe." As you know, the motion of every colliding galaxy is influenced by force they've named a Super Massive black hole. If we were to substitute the title Super Massive for Level One, then the stars of each spiral galaxy would move in orbit around a Level One black hole. The True Map of the Universe consists of many levels of black holes. The Level One black holes influence the stars within a galaxy. The Level Two black holes influence the galaxies. Our cluster of 13 billion year old galaxies are moving in an orbit much like the stars within a galaxy. This is why some galaxies are accelerating. The accelerating galaxies are simply orbiting or drawing closer to our Level Two black hole. Just like the image you shared of two Level One black holes colliding, so do Level Two clusters of galaxies collide with other Level Twos. If you imagine for a moment the influence of a Level 56 black hole, you can see just how much larger or more importantly, older our universe really is.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by Fred RyanHave you tried submitting your theory for peer review?
Colliding galaxies help support my theory I call, "The True Map of the Universe." As you know, the motion of every colliding galaxy is influenced by force they've named a Super Massive black hole. If we were to substitute the title Super Massive for Level One, then the stars of each spiral galaxy would move in orbit around a Level One black hole. The True ...[text shortened]... ack hole, you can see just how much larger or more importantly, older our universe really is.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have shared it a few times in various ways. John Matter of NASA was fielding You Tube questions I asked if there was a way to measure the trajectory of galaxies to show that they are or are not moving in arcs. He replied that although they have no measuring tool for galaxies, the believe the are moving in arcs and in arcs around each other. Sure some move around each other during various stages of collision. It just makes more sense they are in an orbit. I wrote to Neil Tyson. I found him to be a bit of a weenie. I wrote to a couple other guys who had useful suggestions. Your suggestion here sounds best and I appreciate your guidance on how I might submit such a theory. Pardon any typos. Using the phone.
Have you tried submitting your theory for peer review?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Fred RyanTo submit your idea for peer review you need to write it up as a proper science paper,
I have shared it a few times in various ways. John Matter of NASA was fielding You Tube questions I asked if there was a way to measure the trajectory of galaxies to show that they are or are not moving in arcs. He replied that although they have no measuring tool for galaxies, the believe the are moving in arcs and in arcs around each other. Sure some m ...[text shortened]... appreciate your guidance on how I might submit such a theory. Pardon any typos. Using the phone.
in the style dictated by the journal you are submitting it to.
The journal will review the paper to see if it meets the standards they expect, and if it
meets their standards they will pass it on to a number of referees, who are experts in
the field of study relevant to the article in question (in this case astronomers, physicists,
cosmologists) who will check the paper from a technical perspective, and if they feel it
necessary will suggest any alterations/corrections or ask questions of the original author,
assuming they don't just reject it completely.
If you don't have physics (or other relevant) qualifications it is sadly quite likely that your paper
would be rejected out of hand by any serious publication without bothering to actually
send it out to referees.
To minimise the chances of this you need to do a LOT of work to make your hypothesis as
sound as possible and make your paper completely compliant with the relevant standards.
I good hypothesis will agree with everything (relevant) that is already experimentally known,
and explained by the current hypothesises while also explaining the new data not explained
by those theories and/or making testable predictions to experiments/observations that can
be looked for.
It must be falsifiable, ie it must be possible to disprove.
And importantly you need to make Absolutely sure it isn't falsifiable with currently available data.
EDIT: I should have said, they will expect your idea to be presented in the form of a mathematical model
and you should have tested the model to see if it produces something that looks like the universe we see
before submission.
Try elaborating on your idea here, (not typing on your phone) as I am not sure what you are postulating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Criteria_for_scientific_status
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.xhtml
08 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Fred RyanOne factor you need to take into account in your mass tally, the fact there is dark matter we can't see that influences the way galaxies interact. It was proven a few decades ago the way the stars in a galaxy orbit the center is not the way they would if the mass of the galaxy was simply the sum of the stars and the gas clouds we can see.
Colliding galaxies help support my theory I call, "The True Map of the Universe." As you know, the motion of every colliding galaxy is influenced by force they've named a Super Massive black hole. If we were to substitute the title Super Massive for Level One, then the stars of each spiral galaxy would move in orbit around a Level One black hole. The True ...[text shortened]... ack hole, you can see just how much larger or more importantly, older our universe really is.
If you add up all that mass it is not enough to make the stars orbit around the center in the way we know they move. If you compare stars orbiting galaxies to the planets in our solar system, the outer planets orbit our sun way slower than the planets closer in, following the inverse square law shown by Newton 300 years ago. The stars in a galaxy orbit as if they were all stuck to a plate and orbiting more or less at the same radial rate, degrees per century or whatever. It takes our galaxy about 100 to 200 million years to complete one orbit. That means the stars in the periphery are moving faster than the stars near the center because they are all going at the same degree per century rate, 360 degrees being one complete orbit around the center.
That is not perfect or there would be no spiral arms but that is the general idea.
That is a fact. The explanation given for that fact is the addition of a LOT of mass we can't see, called 'dark matter'. It is in the form of a cloud sticking around the galaxy more like a giant bush than a pancake like most of the stars in a galaxy.
This pins the stars to a larger mass and the whole assembly moves more or less together, at least a LOT faster at the periphery than they would with just the mass of the stars by themselves and the intervening gas clouds we can see.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThank you very much for the advice and direction. In the past, I had attempted to find a mathematician to help support the idea of galaxies moving in orbit. I was thinking that if I could show that galaxies move in an orbit or in arcs, then it would help support the idea that they were in orbit around a greater force (a Level 2 black hole), but if the current thinking is that galaxies are out there circling each other, then we're kind of stuck. This idea popped in my head in November of 2008 and it's been fun to think about. I will do what I can to follow through with your suggestions. I think, in the long run, there will be a time when this concept of the structure of the universe will be accepted or realized. It makes sense to me anyway and seems more in line with nature.
To submit your idea for peer review you need to write it up as a proper science paper,
in the style dictated by the journal you are submitting it to.
The journal will review the paper to see if it meets the standards they expect, and if it
meets their standards they will pass it on to a number of referees, who are experts in
the field of study rele ...[text shortened]... scientific_status
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.xhtml
I will try submitting for review. My gut feeling is that I'm better off with a You Tube presentation and maybe a mathematician will run with it.
Thanks again for your suggestions and thanks to the supplier of the images presented here of the colliding galaxies.
Fred Ryan
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by sonhouseI seem to look at this in a simple way. The stars tracked in orbit around what was prematurely termed a Super Massive Black Hole, orbit the center of their galaxy more often than those stars in the periphery.
One factor you need to take into account in your mass tally, the fact there is dark matter we can't see that influences the way galaxies interact. It was proven a few decades ago the way the stars in a galaxy orbit the center is not the way they would if the mass of the galaxy was simply the sum of the stars and the gas clouds we can see.
If you add up a ...[text shortened]... uld with just the mass of the stars by themselves and the intervening gas clouds we can see.
Switch galaxies for stars and you have the same play book. Switch in clusters of galaxies for galaxies and the picture becomes more clear. We're probably engaged in many active collisions right now at various levels.
I'm not sure where dark matter fits in. I haven't thought much about it.
Thank you for your comment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Fred RyanOh and one thing I should have mentioned...
I seem to look at this in a simple way. The stars tracked in orbit around what was prematurely termed a Super Massive Black Hole, orbit the center of their galaxy more often than those stars in the periphery.
Switch galaxies for stars and you have the same play book. Switch in clusters of galaxies for galaxies and the picture becomes more clear. We're p ...[text shortened]... re where dark matter fits in. I haven't thought much about it.
Thank you for your comment.
Scientists are ruthless in trying to destroy papers.
If you make trivially obvious mistakes you will get ridiculed for it.
The idea of peer review is that papers that get through are supposed to be trust able,
and don't have trivial mistakes in them.
And fear of being ridiculed is a big incentive in getting your ideas really pinned down and
tested before attempting to publish.
13 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudge"Dear Mr, Ryan,
Oh and one thing I should have mentioned...
Scientists are ruthless in trying to destroy papers.
If you make trivially obvious mistakes you will get ridiculed for it.
The idea of peer review is that papers that get through are supposed to be trust able,
and don't have trivial mistakes in them.
And fear of being ridiculed is a big incentive in getting your ideas really pinned down and
tested before attempting to publish.
Thanks for your note below. Contrary to popular suspicion, what
matters is not ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen.
What matters most are testable predictions of unknown phenomena
derived from those ideas If you produce such a list of predictions
from your ideas I will be happy to offer comment.
Thank you for your interest.
-NDTyson"
I certainly have no fear of rejection. Comments such as "a dime a dozen" are annoying when I suspect my theory has merit, but fear of rejection is not a consideration.
So, I set out to find "testable predictions of unknown phenomena derived from those ideas" and I submitted this question to Mather: .
Do you suppose that Mather's opinion could be used in some way to support The True Map of the Universe theory? After all, he does say that galaxies are believed to be moving in orbits.