Tully-Fisher was a Suprise

I’m writing this here in an attempt to organize my thoughts and make sure I understand both what I’m thinking and what I’m talking about. No easy task I assure you, doesn’t happen often. In 1977 R. Brent Tully and J. Richard Fisher published a discovery they had made between the luminosity of a galaxy and the ansiotropic velocities of the stars within it. The brighter it is, the faster the stars are moving.
The light they measured wasn’t just from the stars, but also that emitted by gas and dust, so it is more an approximate representation of the total baryonic mass than just the number of stars. Later the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation was proven to be a very tight correlation between the total visible mass in a galaxy and how fast the stars are moving.
Since this relationship is between brightness and mass, we can measure the mass then look at how bright it is and compare that to how bright it should be to get a measurement of the distance between us. Astronomers use this method to this day to measure the distance to other galaxies.
What began to bother me about this is dark matter. Specifically the models we use to study it. I couldn’t see how they do that, how they arrive at such a specific relationship between speed and baryonic matter. The theory is that halos formed and matter fell in, I get that, but to arrive at such a specific relationship every time between regular matter and radial velocity the regular matter must always represent a specific fraction of the halo. It can’t be random, the visible matter has to always represent this specific amount. Yet the way it accumulates that matter is random and I don’t see a way to stop it from falling in once it hits a certain boundary but it has to or the Tully-Fisher relationship couldn’t possibly hold for all galaxies. Some would have to be faster than they are bright because so much of the mass is both dark and external, some halos have to be bigger pulling stars faster or it can’t possibly be random.
It does. It holds true for all galaxies. This for me was a suprise, because it also me means that for many galaxies Tully-Fisher not only allows us to measure the distance, it also allows us to measure the approximate size of the central singularity which has been shown to also be relatively to stellar velocities in many galaxies.
Which led me to think about the models. They demonstrate those velocities are the result of extra mass, yet I can’t see how those models yield a Tully-Fisher relationship between the velocity and baryonic matter when the dark matter was what is responsible for those velocities in the first place according to LCDM.
The relationship means that in some galaxies there is a direct correlation between luminosity and the total mass of the central singularity, which again theoretically formed from a set of random collisions which could possibly be correlated to anything, but there it is time and again.
I can imagine this problem has been addressed somehow but to be honest I’ve never seen a thing about it in the context of dark matter, so I assume it’s under the rug, brushed aside as an irrelevant issue to be addressed later once the theory is proven, perhaps. I’m not sure. What I do know is that all of our observations seem to show galaxies are integrated systems with sets of relationships which are highly correlated and imply a deeper intrinsic connection between themselves and thus the whole system than our current theories can account for and we are not talking about that at all.
We are arguing about axions or whining about WIMPS meanwhile looking for new ways to coax detectable reality out of our models but I don’t see anyone who is asking about this stuff, about these empirical relationships that aren’t necessarily pointing at new physics but perhaps a change in perspective. Tully-Fisher was a suprise to me, it was even more suprising to find it wasn’t a suprise to some people and I’d be very interested to hear what they think it means…

1 Like

Greetings Brian,

My science experience is limited to a college 101 class on astronomy and a college Physics class about the economy, ecology, and the environment; having read sci fi books since I was a kid (mostly Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Dick and Clarke); and watching Cosmos (both Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson). And, of course, lots of sci fi films - many too ridiculous to consider as science.

I know enough to understand we are not alone in the universe. And it fascinates me that so many people think otherwise. I love the unanswered questions and talking about the “what ifs”. And I believe it’s difficult for most humans to open their minds to the unknown. Even the most enlightened of us have difficulty conceiving of things we don’t know. We can’t even consider something that seems impossible, based on what we DO know.

So, I ask you this … instead of considering why it seems this doesn’t work, have you stopped to ask … what would need to be in play, in order for this to make sense?

I am as curious as you, but feel I’m not knowledgeable enough about the science of it, to make a sound postulation. But I would love to hear from those who might!

Sheldyn from Milwaukee

Hello, Sheldyn . . .

With respect, your posting sort of wanders a bit and although in my native language (earthling), I find that it needs some “parsing” on the part of this reader/replyer in order to find its gravitational center. By the idea that “we are not alone in the universe” I believe you mean that there MUST be (statistics alone suggest and the newer interpretation of the Drake Equation permits) other sentient life forms (because that is what we want . . . not just slime on Quargon 3) in the universe. Correct?

I agree. I am nobody. And I deeply regret fouling Mr. Koberlein’s fine carpet with what is considered by some to be intellectual poop. NONETHELESS: you may be intrigued to know that the US government through the agency of the United States Air Force has recently announced that UFOs are real and utterly not understood. They remain “Unknown” and . . . they “exist.” (Which is more alarming?)

The full impact of this small statement is not unlike that of the TK boundary meteor strike some 60 million years ago. Earth will never be the same again. When it wakes up.

I believe an assumption behind your question is that those statistically probable sentient life forms would one day have an encounter with Earth’s human population. Otherwise their “existence” is of no importance, operationally.

For a start you could begin with the New York Times article in late 1917:

This subject, let me warn you, is like approaching a singularity. Reality becomes twisted and truth becomes VERY elusive. Nonethess, “Disclosure” seems to be underway. (That may not be a good thing . . . )

If you are a complete newbie, might I suggest Leslie Keane’s book: UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record (Can be found in your Library or . . .

And a 2007 film you can see on YouTube called Out of the Blue. (It’s a common phrase in music and poetry. Search for the documentary.)

Almost lastly . . . serious inquiry demands that because they remain “Unknown” after 70 years of “scientific” examination, the “extraterrestrial” hypothesis must remain only one of the possible solutions. (While understanding that the discussion here is about TrUfo’s and that they are “not from here.” Or “now.” Then . . . ??? The most interesting question we have ever confronted???)

Lastly — at least TWO US astronauts, Cooper and Mitchel, have publicly spoken about their knowledge of the reality of UFOs. If not THEM (to believe) then WHO? Here is one (of a thousand) sources for the Cooper story:

(Parenthetically yours),

Alienist here again, Sheldyn . . .

TODAY 2019-06-20T04:00:00Z on the internet:

Senators get classified briefing on UFO sightings


It COULD be that DISCLOSURE is underway. This might not be a good thing . . .



My name is Bruce, Brian is the one who owns the site, I just miss him writing like he used to. I wrote some of my thoughts on this in a previous essay. Yes I think there are aliens. No I don’t think they are here. If we are visited it’s by autonomous craft much like we will one day send to probe the stars, but not piloted by little green men, or anyone at all. If you really want to bake your noodle consider it’s fully within the bounds of theoretical science to say if we at some future time sent a probe to explore a black hole, if it wandered too close and got caught in the extreme bending and folds of spacetime which occur so close to the event horizon it could end up exiting its orbit before it even entered it, maybe many years before. When it returned home, if it returned home, it would not find the place it was looking for and would look to us, for all the world, like a very alien thing flying through our skies…

the original topic ( first post in this thread ) seems to have been lost immediately. Getting back to the size and brightness of distant galaxies, many assumptions may be amiss. It is widely assumed that galaxies form by accretion. It seems to me more likely that spiral galaxies in particular are formed not by accretion, but by collision thereby gaining their rotational discoid properties. After time some matter escapes and the rest coalesces and remains so until the next collision.

The problem with a collision process is it’s stochastic, but recent work shows a direct correlation between total visible mass and the mass of the super massive black holes in the center. There is no way to allow for the black hole to grow at the same rate as the galaxy. Couple that to the Tully-Fisher and that means the rotational velocities of most galaxies are directly correlated to the size of the mass of central black, therefore so is galactic mass and luminosity. Remember in dark matter theory the halo is responsible of all that and represents 83 present of the total mass. Taken as a whole conclusion becomes as obvious as it is inescapable, the event that created the central black hole in every galaxy is also the event that created the galaxy itself, set its radius in motion. However it may be many years before this concept is taken seriously, for now we keep building dark matter detectors and ignoring the most fascinating things of all…

Stochastic! How is a collision stochastic and why would that matter anyway? The correlation (“recent work”) is based on unverifiable assumptions. Imagine the gravitational interaction of colliding or near colliding black holes! They would tear each other apart on approach throwing off spiral arms of ejecta. The orbiting remnant black holes would ultimately converge, but until they did, there would be intense axial radiation as is observed in some spiral galaxies.
Dark matter (more unverified assumptions there) need not be regarded as mysterious nor is a “Big Bang” essential. There is abundant non-luminous extra-stellar mater which would radiate as black bodies according to their temperature, hence the cosmic background at about 4 K.

Stochastic as in the bubble forms and then Hoover’s up the random distribution of surrounding material. It is impossible to conclude that every randomized bubble of dark matter randomly encountered the precise amount of matter to yield both a Baryonic Tully-Fisher relationship between visible mass, luminosity and radial velocity and have a specific symmetry with the mass of the central singularity. These symmetries cannot be accidental and continue to be observed in paper after paper. What’s more the Baryonic matter and singularity represent only about 20 percent of the total system, yet all the observable symmetry is with these anecdotal components. I believe non luminous matter exists and may explain the behavior and observations of galactic clusters, but the evidence it has absolutely nothing to do with galactic formation has been staring us right in the face…