Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Galaxy rotation problem solution, no dark mat

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:26:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
I'm skeptical of Dark Matter.

Dark matter has apparently been found, though Sky. Checking for gravitational lensing, Hubble found a ring of the stuff in a galaxy cluster: http://hubblesite.org...

That report is from 2007 though, and I know the theories and interpretations are volatile. But there's apparently some dark matter sometimes -- whether enough to explain everything, I dunno.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:49:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

As I implied to you in the other thread, there are strict requirements before you can call an idea a hypothesis in science. Is this a hypothesis or just speculation?

There is an attempt in physics to see if these things can be explained without dark matter. It's called Modified Newtonian Dynamics:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 11:21:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 10:49:39 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
there are strict requirements before you can call an idea a hypothesis in science.

Yes -- including criteria for clarity, empiricism, specificity, testability and impact. The account at [http://www.indiana.edu... ] is one for social scientists, but captures the gist that the hypothesis:

1) must be conceptually clear;
2) should have empirical referents -- i.e. refer to things that can be observed, measured or tested;
3) must be specific, and avoid the likelihood of accidental validation;
4) should be related to available techniques, so that it's clear which techniques are likely to be suitable to test the hypothesis, and whether any limitations of technique would affect conclusions; and
5) should be related to a body of theory, and be clear on what ideas it would extend or refute, and what further deductions might be possible.

There are two 'musts' and three 'shoulds' there, but the 'shoulds' are strong -- scientists typically have to defend why it's better to ignore them than meet them.

When an idea isn't strong enough to be an hypothesis, it may be considered a conjecture: a speculation meant to trigger further ideas. Conjectures are often less testable and may be less specific, but are usually just as clear, empirical and impactful as a good hypothesis.

This segue isn't really entailed by this thread in particular, but it comes up from time to time in the Science forum, so I thought I'd park it here.

Back to scheduled programming. :)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 12:44:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Im no astronomer either, but if the spin is causing a recognizable effect like this, then shouldnt our spinning around the sun demonstrate this? While our planet orbits closer to the center of the galaxy, time should flow differently than when it moves away and is furthest from the center.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:31:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Okay, normally when people come up with idea's and hypotheses, the following happens:

a.) Think of idea that could potentially solve a problem.
b.) Analyse the idea, to see if it would actually solve the problem.
c.) Analyse the consequences of the idea, including what effects the idea would have on the universe if true.
d.) Form mathematical definition of the idea.

You seem to have stopped at a)

You see, if you decided to chose b) you would see that the galaxy rotation curve isn't the way you claim it is. Stars orbit faster towards the center of the galaxy; they just don't slow down at the rim as much as they should; so time dilation from a central source can't be responsible in the way you claim it works.

Secondly, time dilation doesn't work in the way you think it does. Stars would still travel at the same speed; just time at their location relative to ours would be slower.

Now, if you went as far as c.) Even though the idea doesn't actually solve the problem, you would understand that time dilation is caused by gravity. As much time dilation as you state requires a lot of gravity. I'm talking "getting close to a black hole" type gravity. This sort of gravity comes with other consequences; such as gravitational lensing, which we don't see; and requiring insane orbital velocities that would allow us to inferr the presence of mass that causes of that gravity; which we don't see. And high levels of red shift of stars nearer to the gravity well than we are; which we don't see.

If you did go as far as d), the equations would tell you how much mass you would need to get the type of time dilation you would require.

So lets summarise the details and consequences of your argument:

1.) You don't like the idea dark matter; which is used to explain the fact that newton and einsteins theories when applied to observation inferr that there is more mass than we can see.

2.) You imply that there is another cause of these observations, and propose a mechanism.

3.) The mechanism you propose requires additional mass; mass that cannot be visually measured or observed. For the sake of argument, lets call this "black matter".

4.) The weight of "Black Matter" would need to be orders of magnitude more than the dark matter you are trying to disprove.

5.) The introduction of this black matter, breaks newton and einsteins theories; the latter, ironically, is the theory you require to be true in order to explain the rotation of galaxy via time dilation.

Congratulations; your "Hypothesis" invalidated two well tested and well established theories, and invents mass that cannot be measured or inferred to exist to solve a problem that is also solved by not invalidating those two theories and invoking an unknown substance whose existance can be inferred by observations and doesn't really even solve the problem you set out to solve.

Ever thought of a career in Creation Science?
jhonmax12
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:13:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Magnetism refers to physical phenomena arising from the force between magnets, objects that produce fields that attract or repel other objects. To know more about the magnetic science fun please visits.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""
MAGNETIC SCIENCE FUN
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:29:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 8:31:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Okay, normally when people come up with idea's and hypotheses, the following happens:

a.) Think of idea that could potentially solve a problem.
b.) Analyse the idea, to see if it would actually solve the problem.
c.) Analyse the consequences of the idea, including what effects the idea would have on the universe if true.
d.) Form mathematical definition of the idea.

You seem to have stopped at a)

You see, if you decided to chose b) you would see that the galaxy rotation curve isn't the way you claim it is. Stars orbit faster towards the center of the galaxy; they just don't slow down at the rim as much as they should; so time dilation from a central source can't be responsible in the way you claim it works.

Secondly, time dilation doesn't work in the way you think it does. Stars would still travel at the same speed; just time at their location relative to ours would be slower.

Now, if you went as far as c.) Even though the idea doesn't actually solve the problem, you would understand that time dilation is caused by gravity. As much time dilation as you state requires a lot of gravity. I'm talking "getting close to a black hole" type gravity. This sort of gravity comes with other consequences; such as gravitational lensing, which we don't see; and requiring insane orbital velocities that would allow us to inferr the presence of mass that causes of that gravity; which we don't see. And high levels of red shift of stars nearer to the gravity well than we are; which we don't see.

If you did go as far as d), the equations would tell you how much mass you would need to get the type of time dilation you would require.

So lets summarise the details and consequences of your argument:

1.) You don't like the idea dark matter; which is used to explain the fact that newton and einsteins theories when applied to observation inferr that there is more mass than we can see.

2.) You imply that there is another cause of these observations, and propose a mechanism.

3.) The mechanism you propose requires additional mass; mass that cannot be visually measured or observed. For the sake of argument, lets call this "black matter".

4.) The weight of "Black Matter" would need to be orders of magnitude more than the dark matter you are trying to disprove.

5.) The introduction of this black matter, breaks newton and einsteins theories; the latter, ironically, is the theory you require to be true in order to explain the rotation of galaxy via time dilation.

Congratulations; your "Hypothesis" invalidated two well tested and well established theories, and invents mass that cannot be measured or inferred to exist to solve a problem that is also solved by not invalidating those two theories and invoking an unknown substance whose existance can be inferred by observations and doesn't really even solve the problem you set out to solve.

Ever thought of a career in Creation Science?

Must give a +1 to this, if i could, but cant, so it will be in the form of words.

+1 to you good sir. Definitely the funniest thing ive read today.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 12:39:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 8:31:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Okay, normally when people come up with idea's and hypotheses, the following happens:

a.) Think of idea that could potentially solve a problem.
b.) Analyse the idea, to see if it would actually solve the problem.
c.) Analyse the consequences of the idea, including what effects the idea would have on the universe if true.
d.) Form mathematical definition of the idea.

You seem to have stopped at a)

You see, if you decided to chose b) you would see that the galaxy rotation curve isn't the way you claim it is. Stars orbit faster towards the center of the galaxy; they just don't slow down at the rim as much as they should; so time dilation from a central source can't be responsible in the way you claim it works.

Secondly, time dilation doesn't work in the way you think it does. Stars would still travel at the same speed; just time at their location relative to ours would be slower.

Now, if you went as far as c.) Even though the idea doesn't actually solve the problem, you would understand that time dilation is caused by gravity. As much time dilation as you state requires a lot of gravity. I'm talking "getting close to a black hole" type gravity. This sort of gravity comes with other consequences; such as gravitational lensing, which we don't see; and requiring insane orbital velocities that would allow us to inferr the presence of mass that causes of that gravity; which we don't see. And high levels of red shift of stars nearer to the gravity well than we are; which we don't see.

If you did go as far as d), the equations would tell you how much mass you would need to get the type of time dilation you would require.

So lets summarise the details and consequences of your argument:

1.) You don't like the idea dark matter; which is used to explain the fact that newton and einsteins theories when applied to observation inferr that there is more mass than we can see.

2.) You imply that there is another cause of these observations, and propose a mechanism.

3.) The mechanism you propose requires additional mass; mass that cannot be visually measured or observed. For the sake of argument, lets call this "black matter".

4.) The weight of "Black Matter" would need to be orders of magnitude more than the dark matter you are trying to disprove.

5.) The introduction of this black matter, breaks newton and einsteins theories; the latter, ironically, is the theory you require to be true in order to explain the rotation of galaxy via time dilation.

Congratulations; your "Hypothesis" invalidated two well tested and well established theories, and invents mass that cannot be measured or inferred to exist to solve a problem that is also solved by not invalidating those two theories and invoking an unknown substance whose existance can be inferred by observations and doesn't really even solve the problem you set out to solve.

Ever thought of a career in Creation Science?

Maybe there'd be fewer ignorant people in the world if the highly educated weren't so condescending.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 2:23:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 12:39:07 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:31:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Okay, normally when people come up with idea's and hypotheses, the following happens:

a.) Think of idea that could potentially solve a problem.
b.) Analyse the idea, to see if it would actually solve the problem.
c.) Analyse the consequences of the idea, including what effects the idea would have on the universe if true.
d.) Form mathematical definition of the idea.

You seem to have stopped at a)

You see, if you decided to chose b) you would see that the galaxy rotation curve isn't the way you claim it is. Stars orbit faster towards the center of the galaxy; they just don't slow down at the rim as much as they should; so time dilation from a central source can't be responsible in the way you claim it works.

Secondly, time dilation doesn't work in the way you think it does. Stars would still travel at the same speed; just time at their location relative to ours would be slower.

Now, if you went as far as c.) Even though the idea doesn't actually solve the problem, you would understand that time dilation is caused by gravity. As much time dilation as you state requires a lot of gravity. I'm talking "getting close to a black hole" type gravity. This sort of gravity comes with other consequences; such as gravitational lensing, which we don't see; and requiring insane orbital velocities that would allow us to inferr the presence of mass that causes of that gravity; which we don't see. And high levels of red shift of stars nearer to the gravity well than we are; which we don't see.

If you did go as far as d), the equations would tell you how much mass you would need to get the type of time dilation you would require.

So lets summarise the details and consequences of your argument:

1.) You don't like the idea dark matter; which is used to explain the fact that newton and einsteins theories when applied to observation inferr that there is more mass than we can see.

2.) You imply that there is another cause of these observations, and propose a mechanism.

3.) The mechanism you propose requires additional mass; mass that cannot be visually measured or observed. For the sake of argument, lets call this "black matter".

4.) The weight of "Black Matter" would need to be orders of magnitude more than the dark matter you are trying to disprove.

5.) The introduction of this black matter, breaks newton and einsteins theories; the latter, ironically, is the theory you require to be true in order to explain the rotation of galaxy via time dilation.

Congratulations; your "Hypothesis" invalidated two well tested and well established theories, and invents mass that cannot be measured or inferred to exist to solve a problem that is also solved by not invalidating those two theories and invoking an unknown substance whose existance can be inferred by observations and doesn't really even solve the problem you set out to solve.

Ever thought of a career in Creation Science?

Maybe there'd be fewer ignorant people in the world if the highly educated weren't so condescending.

Firstly, is that admitting that you were ignorant?

Secondly, thank you for subtly implying that I'm highly educated.

Thirdly, I'm being condescending so that you learn something. If you're too dumb to know what that is, then nothing I will ever say will make you learn. If, however, you're smart enough to know what the point I was making is, you'll never make that same mistake again and thus my work here is done.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 11:45:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 2:23:04 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2015 12:39:07 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:31:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2015 9:53:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
Galaxies don't spin like we expect, and no one is sure why. That's partly why we have dark matter, which is the X=unknown in so many deep space calculations.

I'm skeptical of Dark Matter. Slo1 posted recently about how the discovery of two different types of supernova (instead of 1) threw off the amount of dark matter and energy required to account for the expansion rate of the universe.

I don't know much about the expansion of the universe, but I do know a little about the rotation curve of galaxies:

A wheel spins fastest at the edge, and slowest in the middle.
Satellites move slowest at the edge, and fastest near the center of gravity well.

But galaxies spin slowest in the center, and faster on the edge.

My hypothesis is that dark matter and dark energy aren't such a big deal, but time dilation is. In the center of many galaxies, it is believed there is a massive black hole. If you are on the event horizon of the black hole, time will be dilated so much, time nearly stops in relation to the rest of the universe. As you travel farther out from the gravity well, time will speed up. When you are on the edge of the galaxy, not only are you far from the black hole, you are far from the combined gravity fields of all those stars, planets, gas and dust clouds. Time on the edge of the galaxy would travel faster relative to what happens inside the galaxy.

Velocity is Distance over Time. If we could measure the velocity of each object spinning around the galactic core without assuming time is constant, maybe galaxy rotation would make a lot more sense.

Okay, normally when people come up with idea's and hypotheses, the following happens:

a.) Think of idea that could potentially solve a problem.
b.) Analyse the idea, to see if it would actually solve the problem.
c.) Analyse the consequences of the idea, including what effects the idea would have on the universe if true.
d.) Form mathematical definition of the idea.

You seem to have stopped at a)

You see, if you decided to chose b) you would see that the galaxy rotation curve isn't the way you claim it is. Stars orbit faster towards the center of the galaxy; they just don't slow down at the rim as much as they should; so time dilation from a central source can't be responsible in the way you claim it works.

Secondly, time dilation doesn't work in the way you think it does. Stars would still travel at the same speed; just time at their location relative to ours would be slower.

Now, if you went as far as c.) Even though the idea doesn't actually solve the problem, you would understand that time dilation is caused by gravity. As much time dilation as you state requires a lot of gravity. I'm talking "getting close to a black hole" type gravity. This sort of gravity comes with other consequences; such as gravitational lensing, which we don't see; and requiring insane orbital velocities that would allow us to inferr the presence of mass that causes of that gravity; which we don't see. And high levels of red shift of stars nearer to the gravity well than we are; which we don't see.

If you did go as far as d), the equations would tell you how much mass you would need to get the type of time dilation you would require.

So lets summarise the details and consequences of your argument:

1.) You don't like the idea dark matter; which is used to explain the fact that newton and einsteins theories when applied to observation inferr that there is more mass than we can see.

2.) You imply that there is another cause of these observations, and propose a mechanism.

3.) The mechanism you propose requires additional mass; mass that cannot be visually measured or observed. For the sake of argument, lets call this "black matter".

4.) The weight of "Black Matter" would need to be orders of magnitude more than the dark matter you are trying to disprove.

5.) The introduction of this black matter, breaks newton and einsteins theories; the latter, ironically, is the theory you require to be true in order to explain the rotation of galaxy via time dilation.

Congratulations; your "Hypothesis" invalidated two well tested and well established theories, and invents mass that cannot be measured or inferred to exist to solve a problem that is also solved by not invalidating those two theories and invoking an unknown substance whose existance can be inferred by observations and doesn't really even solve the problem you set out to solve.

Ever thought of a career in Creation Science?

Maybe there'd be fewer ignorant people in the world if the highly educated weren't so condescending.

Firstly, is that admitting that you were ignorant?

Secondly, thank you for subtly implying that I'm highly educated.

Thirdly, I'm being condescending so that you learn something. If you're too dumb to know what that is, then nothing I will ever say will make you learn. If, however, you're smart enough to know what the point I was making is, you'll never make that same mistake again and thus my work here is done.

I'm guessing you are highly educated, and yes, this is not my field of expertise, so I am more ignorant than those who study astronomy for a living.

If condescension is better than constructive criticism, I must not be a very good student, because I don't see the advantage: I specifically made this post so people who knew more than me could critique my idea. I've mostly lost interest in the subject because of the mockery. You had an interested student, trying to start a dialogue. Your best course of action was to make fun of him. Bravo.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.