What do YOU think Dark Energy really is?

Ok yeah, multiply v by 1000 to get meters per sec then square. Should work. Just pointing out all the mistakes I've made before you do them too. Answer is in Kg/m and I think it's around 10e5 on the average. should be able to work out the stellar density in the arm and compare to local arm?

oops, double checked and got about 10^20 for linear density in MKS units. Hope that helps. I think I will just wait to see what you come up with and answer questions as they come up. Feel free to ask whatever you like.

OK.  I'm taking my time because really the whole dark matter theory appears to hang on that decimal point.  If you get galactic masses in the 10^11 solar mass range (as you have been getting) you don't need dark matter to explain any missing mass.  If you get galactic masses in the 10^12 solar mass range, you have a problem.  (I think the current standard model estimate for the Milky Way is c. 3x10^12 solar masses -- obviously not using your method ) 

Yep.  I get the same numbers, but I haven't the foggiest idea if they really mean anything.  It's interesting that the Burbidge paper comes up with a galactic total of only 1.58 x 10^11 solar masses.  Of course they use a much more complex formula to compute the mass, based on a (typically) steep density distribution curve.  (Fig. 4 in the paper)

Burbidge et al spend quite a bit time talking about the density distribution in the galaxy and their curve shows it dropping by 90% within about an arc-minute from the center.

I'd venture a guess that the major reason you can't get the paper published is the assumption of uniform density.   I think you'll need to prove the validity of that assumption.  If you can do that, not only will you get the paper published, you'll revolutionize astrophysics and doubtless get a Nobel Prize.  

That is very kind of you. Burbidge does not use a constant linear density. He uses some bizarre and almost nonsensical integral that gives a whole order of magnitude less than anything reasonable. 10^11 is the right ball park. 10^12  is out by a factor of 10, or, again, an order of magnitude. Please note that the expanding universe theory requires a cosmic density 10 times more than what we measure. Hence everybody is out by a factor of ten. Thank you so much for going over what I have done with such care and so meticulously. Again that is remarkably kind. Everything hinges of Occam's razor.  Be very careful on what has been assumed. Others assume an expanding universe which leads to the necessity of some exotic and undetectable material. I do not use that assumption. I do not assume a constant linear density; I have derived it from very basic principles. I assume that c, G and h are the same on distant galaxies as they are here and extrapolate that the rotational velocities of member stars of spiral galaxies are all equal. That is all I have assumed and extrapolated. Dat's it, big guy. The rest is simple algebra.

The responses from journals are not that I am incorrect, as a matter of fact they acknowledge that what I have done is perfectly and scientifically sound as far as they can figure it. They respond simply that if they publish my material they will endanger their readership. There are enough readers here to be able to criticize my work, which I fully welcome. And if anybody wants to publish it in their journals, newsletters or high school science magazines, by all means, be my guest.

You had asked, what is dark matter? Now you know. And you have worked very hard to find that rather important little tidbit of knowledge. Well done.

By the way, the decimal point is in the right place.  Also people can enter comments on the Vixra site and can join the Facebook group, The Unified Field Theory, (you have to knock on the door to get in).

Just checking. George Abell, in Exploration of the Universe, calculates the mass of the Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 e11 solar masses and declares it is the same order of mass as our own galaxy. That has been the accepted value for a very long time. I do not know when the value jumped by a factor of ten. I doubt very much that there is any credence to that increase in value. The table I posted, which is the one you went over, appears correct.

Late breaking news....

"Recent measurements by the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) have revealed that the Milky Way is much heavier than some previously thought. The mass of our home galaxy is now considered to be roughly similar to that of our largest local neighbour, the Andromeda Galaxy. By using the VLBA to measure the apparent shift of far-flung star-forming regions when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun, the researchers were able to measure the distance to those regions using fewer assumptions than prior efforts. The newer and more accurate estimate of the galaxy's rotational speed (and in turn the amount of dark matter contained by the galaxy) puts the figure at about 254 km/s, significantly higher than the widely accepted value of 220 km/s.^[16] This in turn implies that the Milky Way has a total mass equivalent to around 3 trillion Suns, about 50% more massive than some previously thought.^[17] "

Of course the above is just Wikipedia, so make of it what you will.  Here is one of the sources:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39709/title/This_just_in_Milky_Way_as_massive_as_3_trillion_suns

Uh, I got 245 kps as just a wild guess. Abell, an old but reliable source, has a spin of about 200 kps for Andromeda. So for absolutely no reason whatsoever, uh, more that 200 kps for us seems ok. There are two major problems in measuring the mass of our galaxy: one is we don't know how far it is to the centre and the other is we don't know how fast we are going around it. There ain't that much difference really between 220 and 254 and we got no idea of their error bars. Furthermore,the article does not say what is the measured distance to the centre of the galaxy. A chap in Europe, let's see ..S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, S. Trippe, T. Alexander, R. Genzel, F. Martins, T. Ott, Monitoring Stellar Orbits around the Massive Black Hole in the Calactic Center, Draft Version, December 10, 2008, yeah, that's the guy, he has studied the centre of our galaxy for about 21 years and says we're about 8.3 kps away from the centre. OK, let's do the math here... that's 2.738e41 kg.  which makes 1.375 e 11 suns you can make out of it if you have enough time in the afternoon. I have talked to Dr. Gillessen in the process of doing my work. Nice guy.

Hey, if you don't assume the answer before doing your calculations, you get a heck of a lot more accurate stuff when you finish eh?

Nevertheless, I am still in doubt about how fast we are going and where we are along the galactic arm. Also, the science news reference you posted also has an article claiming our galaxy, out of the vast millions we have seen so far, has four, rather than two, spiral arms. Let's just say I'm not convinced eh? 

Oh yeah, also, Abell's calculations are spot on regarding the mass of Andromeda. We're in the 11th order of magnitude. A rather nice place to be. The stuff I have seen to the contrary is mostly arm waving with no math to back it up. You do the math and you can see forever.

For the biggest arm wave ever ... according to our calculations ...

Just to cloud this discussion a little further, recall the surprising fact discovered by Newton, that a spherically symmetric shell of matter has no net gravitational force on objects inside it. Hence I take issue with bbrout's claim that "If you are a star in the galaxy, the stuff farther out pulls you away from the centre, the stuff farther in, pulls you towards the centre." is obvious. It is highly dependant on the distribution of the matter. If my mental argument is correct, a circularly symmetric distribution of matter at a greater radius than an object in the same plane does pull that object outwards, which may be slightly more relevant for spiral galaxies (but still a highly inaccurate approximation).

You are kind of getting it. First, it is not a spherical shell. But don't start with the shape of the stuff. Start with circular motion. You end up with the same conclusion I have. Step by step. (v^2)/r = a and away you go from there. if you are dealing with spheres, disks, linear orientations of matter or a large mass in the middle, you only need worry about the stuff towards the centre. Each geometric shape has a centre of mass function dependent on an integral order of r, such as r^3 for a sphere, r^2 for a disk, r for a linear orientation and a constant for a large mass in the middle. You then use F=ma and F = GmM(r)/(r^2) and you end up with the same that I have ended up with. The process is sometimes called comparing coefficients and is based on the fundamental theorem of algebra. The solution exists and it is unique.  

I THINK THAT'S A KIND OF GRAVITY...EQUALIZER GRAVITY...A ZOOM VISION GRAVITY

WAVES OF GRAVITY CREATED A HARMONY ZOOM VISION...LIKE THE WATER , FLOWING EVERYWHERE...OBSEVING ANY KIND OF GALAXY LIGHTS CROSSING FARAWAY THEIR SOURCES & CREATING THIS DARK ENERGY.

Black holes...i think it's very important for transfering this Dark energy ( Dark gravity ) to be a reserve for next & next & next new gravity generation till the end of our earth days...& at the end , the galaxy will appear like a flower & start customize till be return back as the begining of the big bang.

Dark energy is kind non direction waves of gravity but it's a harmony unknown material playing the rule of the blood in the galaxy body.

Hey, go with the flow man.

What's dark energy?

Incredibly good question. I believe it is completely undefined and there is irrefutable evidence that it doesn't exist. There was a very good discussion between Patzer and myself within this forum. What happens to be your take on this -- point of view?

I can echo the view of physicists that stable supersymmetric particles seem to be a good candidate.

Sorry Elroch, a good candidate for what?

I just posted this about a month ago:

http://vixra.org/abs/1004.0081

I gave a talk on this at Stanford and will be at Greenbank beginning of July with SARA. They are a great bunch of people and I encourage everyone to join. SARA is the Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers. 

Hi. Anybody see the webcast?