Now here’s a thought, folks. Maybe ultra-diffuse galaxies lack the organizing electric currents and magnetic fields that … say … spirals have? In other words, they’re not big homopolar motors. So, in a PC/EU universe, the motions would be based solely on the amount of matter and only gravity. That contrasts with a spiral which has a homopolar motor governing motions, which produces rotation velocities and rotation curves that, to a mainstream that doesn't believe that electric currents affect plasma galaxies the way Anthony Peratt’s simulations showed they do, seems to require dark matter. So maybe this observation is yet more confirmation of Plasma Cosmology’s theories about the formation and dynamics of galaxies?Why are dark matter halos of ultra-diffuse galaxies so odd?
A study co-led by physicists at UC Riverside and UC Irvine has found that dark matter halos of ultra-diffuse galaxies are very odd, raising questions about physicists' understanding of galaxy formation and the structure of the universe.
… snip …
In the following Q&A, Hai-Bo Yu, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at UCR, shares his thoughts on the findings he and UCI's Manoj Kaplinghat, his long-term collaborator, have published in The Astrophysical Journal about newly discovered ultra-diffuse galaxies and their dark matter halos.
… snip …
Q. You've found that dark matter halos of the ultra-diffuse galaxies are very odd. What is odd about them and what are you comparing them to?
The ultra-diffuse galaxies we studied are much less massive compared to, say, the Milky Way. They contain a lot of gas, however, and they have much higher gas mass than total stellar mass, which is opposite to what we see in the Milky Way. The ultra-diffuse galaxies also have large sizes.
The distribution of dark matter in these galaxies can be inferred from the motion of gas particles. What really surprises us is that the presence of baryonic matter itself, predominantly in the form of gas, is nearly sufficient to explain the measured velocity of gas particles and leaves little room for dark matter in the inner regions, where most of the stars and gas are located.
This is very surprising because in the case of normal galaxies, whose masses are similar to those of the ultra-diffuse galaxies, it's the opposite: Dark matter dominates over baryonic matter. To accommodate this result, we conclude that these dark matter halos must have much lower "concentrations." That is, they contain much less mass in their inner regions, compared to those of normal galaxies. In this sense, dark matter halos of the ultra-diffuse galaxies are "odd."
At first glance, one would expect that such low-concentration halos are so rare that the ultra-diffuse galaxies would not even exist. After looking into the data from state-of-the-art numerical simulations of cosmic structure formation, however, we found the population of low-concentration halos is higher than the expectation.
Here, by the way, is what a diffuse galaxy (lacking DM they say) looks like (on the left) compared to a normal spiral (on the right) with (supposedly) DM:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... galaxy.jpg
Here’s another picture of a diffuse galaxies without DM …
https://cdn.sci.news/images/enlarge4/im ... 52-DF2.jpg
As NASA says (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... er-deepens ) this latter galaxy (DF2) "doesn't appear to have a noticeable central region, spiral arms, or a disk. The team estimates that DF2 contains at most 1/400th the amount of dark matter than astronomers had expected. How the galaxy formed remains a complete mystery based on the team's latest measurements."
Now the mainstream has theorized that DM was "stripped out" of these galaxies by a near collision with another galaxy ... but what if they formed that way? What if this is what happens when Birkeland currents don’t dominate a galaxy's creation … only gravity does? After all, it seems to me there must be cases in a plasma universe where gravity would be the only thing available to bring a lot of matter (stars) together … rotating only due to whatever slow background rotation the cloud they formed from might have had.
Now there have been some diffuse galaxies that the mainstream claimed had lots of DM ... in fact, primarily DM. For example, a few years ago, the earth based Keck Observatory discovered a diffuse galaxy, Dragonfly 44 (DF44), that they claimed was 95% dark matter!
But then, in 2020, that claim went poof. Phys.org reported (https://phys.org/news/2020-10-puzzle-st ... -dark.html ) that "An international team .. snip ... has found [using Hubble] that the total number of globular clusters around Dragonfly 44 and, therefore, the dark matter content, is much less than earlier findings had suggested, which shows that this galaxy is neither unique nor anomalous." It turned out that DF44 only masses about 1/1000-th of what they initially thought. However, they still claim that the amount of DM in this galaxy is about 300 times the luminous matter, i.e., they say "normal for this type of galaxy." Now some scientists are suggesting (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 213/abb886) that maybe DF44 isn't even a diffuse galaxy, but instead a typical dwarf galaxy.
But either way, they're still claiming there needs to be a lot of dark matter in DF44 to account for it's rotation rate. But what if it's a failed spiral? Back when the DF team was claiming it had 1000 times the mass, their explanation was that it was a failed spiral. Here, according to mainstream source back then ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... xy/502418/
So what prevents the current DF44 from being a failed spiral or at least a galaxy where electromagnetism might have initially rev'd up the rotation but then the homopolar motor failed to start ... leaving the diffuse mass of stars rotating faster than they should without dark matter, according to non-Peratt believing Big Bang scientists? And if this explanation might work for DF44 ... how about all the other diffuse galaxies supposedly having DM?Abraham and van Dokkum first noticed their smudges in the spring of 2014. Since then, similar “ultra-diffuse galaxies,” or UDGs, have been discovered in other galaxy groupings like the Virgo and Fornax clusters. And in the Coma cluster, one study suggested, there may be a thousand more of them, including 332 that are about as large as the Milky Way.
Meanwhile, the Dragonfly team has been advancing the case that these new dim galaxies really are oddballs that challenge current theory. They’re failed galaxies, this argument holds. Dark matter planted the seeds of a spiral disk and stars, but somehow the luminous structure didn’t sprout.
That argument has convinced outside experts like Ostriker, who finds van Dokkum’s prior record highly credible. “There are many, many other people who could have ‘discovered’ this where I’d be much more skeptical,” Ostriker said. “The simplest way of putting it is: His papers aren’t wrong.”
All this sort of makes sense to me. Comments?