Also, the mass in the universe cannot be all baryonic, since that would make primordial nucleosynthesis inconsistent with observed abundances of various light isotopes.
I looked under his name on arxiv and didn't find anything on this topic.
[1] alex@SensibleUniverse.net
I am very dubious the idea is correct. If objects at large distances from the galaxy center have these large relative velocities induced by external objects they wouldn't be bound to the galaxy.
Right. Tides must be caused by something other than the Moon because it's just too far away. No, wait, large masses have do have an effect across large distances. There are no isolated reference frames without gravity. Galaxy clusters do orbit around their center of gravity. Would you like to know how many theories in theoretical physics been proven? Precisely none of them, including Dark Matter Theory. This dubiousness is specious and, fwiw, a bandwagon argument.
The observations of Fritz Zwicky and Jan Oort were of spiral galaxies in isolation, which led to the need for Dark Matter to explain the rotation curives. Once the entire galaxy cluster is considered, it becomes evident that a spiral galaxy is not an isolated reference frame and that Dark Matter is no longer necessary to explain galaxy rotation curves.[1]
His work is attractive to laymen like myself, but any rational person has to wonder why, if his claims have any validity, he has been ignored completely by the wider physics community (which is to say, people who actually know shit, unlike most of us).
Your call to "watch the video and you'll never talk about galaxy rotation curves again" sounds a whole lot like similar statements made about such nonsense as "There are no forests on Earth", so if you honestly believe this guy should be taken seriously for some reason I would suggest a change in approach.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060207030527/http://www.stanfo...
It took a while, but I think I found the PDF of the book I was talking about [0].
> fundamentally you are making an ad hominem argument, effectively saying, "this guy is a crackpot, why should we listen to him?"
Kinda, not really. I'm saying that if my recollection is correct this guy has expressed wild ideas before that were also ignored by the physics community and therefore it is worth viewing his works with suspicion because we are not qualified to evaluate it, but people who are have apparently decided it wasn't worth much.
> It doesn't matter who he is. One must examine the assertions and findings detailed in his lecture, and only if flaws can be found there can his tidal theory explaining galaxy rotation curves be defeated.
Sure, admittedly. So, why aren't any physicists giving this idea the time of day?
As I was pretty clear about in my post, I do not consider myself (nor you) qualified to assess his work in anything more than an armchair manner. The fact that his ideas don't seem to be something other physicists take seriously is something of an indicator that maybe I shouldn't either.
> Mayer's explanation for galaxy rotation curves is simple, elegant, and compelling, and it is interesting that no one at HN wants to take it head on
Because we are not physicists, as I assume you aren't either. Go to a forum full of physicists if you want a real assessment of its worth. We, being not physicists ourselves, can only judge its merit by proxy and intuition. The latter of those is especially dubious and especially prone to liking simple, elegant, compelling, and utterly wrong ideas.
> but instead will employ the all too common hand wave and other fallacious arguments. Look at it. Figure out why it is wrong or don't.
Strong words for someone who's response to all of this is "watch the video and you'll understand". Hand wave indeed.
[0] entitled The Many Directions of Time: http://www.5ision.org/GTR/amayer_the-many-directions-of-time...
Thank you for taking the time. My search fu is admittedly weak. That you've consumed this is also impressive.
> So, why aren't any physicists giving this idea the time of day?
Bandwagon.
> As I was pretty clear about in my post, I do not consider myself (nor you) qualified to assess his work in anything more than an armchair manner.
Ad hominem.
> Strong words for someone who's response to all of this is "watch the video and you'll understand". Hand wave indeed.
First, recognize the fallacies you're employing.
The video lecture and slides use high school level Newtonian physics to explain galaxy rotation clusters. If you understood the physics in his book, the physics in the video should be child's play. It is not remotely difficult to understand. And it is possible for a layman to evaluate it for rigor without referring to the theorist or other physicists.
It was years ago, and I only gleaned the high concept really, but it has been around for nearly two decades now (though mysteriously not mentioned at all by Mayer's site) and, you will note, makes some pretty big claims about the fundamental nature of the cosmos including the ones I mentioned.
> Bandwagon.
Hand waving. You say that others are not doing the work by looking at the video you posted yet insist on this dismissive justification for ignoring that the qualified professional physicists of the world don't seem to think Mayer has accomplished what he claims.
> Ad hominem.
Hand waving, and wrong. I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the facts: we are not qualified to give an informed appraisal of this material. Drawing conclusions about its validity because it makes sense to us is pretty much exactly the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Look at what you're saying: somehow this guy has explained galactic rotation curves with high school level physics while practically all other physicists over the last nearly a century clung to some obviously wrong idea instead? And your explanation for this is that they're all in a bandwagon? This is the same community that said high-temperature superconductors couldn't exist, and then someone proved them wrong and won the fastest nobel prize in history.
Please explain how that is even remotely a rational conclusion, because it sounds like the same level of discourse one gets from flat earth conspiracy theorists.
Frankly, the idea that you are arguing in good faith is becoming harder to believe.
No, I was identifying your argument, made again after I already identified it, as a bandwagon fallacy.
> Hand waving, and wrong. I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the facts
I did not suggest there was insult, only that you were employing the ad hominem fallacy by ignoring the material and focusing on me and you. Any argument focusing on anyone's expertise, in this case mine and yours, is entirely irrelevant and fundamentally an ad hominem argument, which is necessarily fallacious.
> And your explanation for this is that they're all in a bandwagon?
No. Your's and pfdietz's argument, paraphrasing, "if it's correct or worth our time, why hasn't the physics community acknowledged it?" or whatever, is fundamentally a bandwagon argument, which is fallacious.
When you're not actually well versed in a domain, all sorts of completely simple, elegant, compelling, and utterly wrong ideas make sense. I couldn't find any fault with The Many Directions of Time, but that doesn't mean it is a good model of cosmology[0], it's just the result of me not really understanding the domain sufficiently. It is completely rational to doubt my judgement under these circumstances.
Therefore, knowing that I lack the ability to judge the work's validity, I employ a heuristic: do people who are qualified to judge it say it is valid? And the answer appears to be "they don't even consider it worth their time to look at", which I find to be particularly strong evidence that I shouldn't take it seriously either.
The alternative is employing my own flawed understanding to judge validity, which is of course going to produce garbage results.
As a proponent of this idea, you have asserted that you think it is valid, and despite not disagreeing with the assertion that you yourself are not a domain expert, continue to assert that because you understand it, it is valid. You are free to believe that all you wish, of course, but it isn't going to sway any of us. Especially when, heuristically, the things you're saying are a close match the language employed by conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and the like.
If your goal is not to convince us... then what is the point of this discussion?
If your goal is to convince us, I'm telling you that you're doing a particularly unimpressive job of making your case by refusing to engage with the heuristic reasoning in any way, or even offering an alternative other than "watch the video and it will convince you". I will note that watching a video of a conman or magician can be pretty convincing too, so that's not exactly good evidence either.
If what you're trying to say is to trust in scientific method, then we still can't trust our own reasoning with the argument and need to rely on the objective analysis of others including testing of hypothesis... none of which has happened. If it had, I'm sure you'd have brought it up by now.
So, again, this all heuristically looks like bullshit. We have a supposed "one neat trick solves one of the most mysterious things in modern physics" that, unsurprisingly, "physicists don't want you to know about" or whatever, and the resident proponent of the concept refuses to do anything but point people at the source video they aren't qualified to objectively analyze, and said proponent refuses to explain why it all looks like bullshit even if it supposedly isn't.
Since we seem to be miscommunication to a significant degree, I will try and summarize this:
-Mayer has an idea that looks compelling to laymen
-The experts in cosmology have apparently not even bothered to engage with it
-While this does not mean Mayer is wrong, for those of us who are not experts in cosmology it certainly looks like we shouldn't take it seriously
-You're asking us to ignore that and pretend that our layperson judgement is somehow good enough
You are very eloquently and thoroughly attempting to justify your ad hominem argument, and to be more specific, you are presenting a credentials fallacy.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am an expert, and more so, that I am more qualified to evaluate the lecture than any scientist that ever lived or ever will live, and I tell you, it is correct, and I know, because I'm an expert, then regardless whether I or the presentation is correct or not, I'd be committing an appeal to authority and a fallacious argument.
Regardless of whether you are an expert in physics or not has no bearing on the validity of the theory, nor whether you are capable of deciding whether the theory is valid or not. You've speculated whether I was arguing in good faith, and now I must do the same. You're obviously intelligent and capable of deep consideration. Either you watch the video and draw your own conclusions, or you can not speak to it. It is that simple. Do or do not, those are your only choices. There is no valid argument that you can make to weasel out of them.