/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11264491
Anyway.
Making a 3D model for a handful of objects at differing velocities seemed like a hassle.
https://youtu.be/LOVzytir7bM
Let alone thousands of objects that ideally you want to vary independently.

Those models work by projecting a 2D pattern, wrapped around a 3D object, onto a 2D surface.
You get the same effect by projecting a 2D pattern, stuck on to a 2D surface, onto a 3D surface.

Then you can change the z-axis by moving the light source up and down, although that's kind of a cheat.

Using a pattern of concentric circles or just dots, you can see that a 4th dimension would (given enough gravity) result in a flat rotation curve or an under-estimation of mass.
We observe that in (most) galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Therefore, our observations of galaxies are evidence of a 4th dimension.

Sadly there's no evidence of any weeb dimensions though.

>>11202655
Right, I think I know what you're getting at now, although it's still hard to interpret.

The related pic shows how the 4th dimension works. I think the bit of gravity we need to modify is how gravity distorts space-time.
The sculpture itself would be how galaxies actually are and the projection is what we observe.
You can see that all the shapes on the sculpture are of equal size to each other, whereas in the projection, the size of objects increases the further they are from the centre.
So if all you could see was the shadow and the only accurate data you had was for the outer-most objects, you would need to greatly increase the size of objects towards the centre (relative to their size in the shadow).

I feel like this is in line with modified gravity and doesn't need magic particles (so hopefully that would keep you happy), but it also has the missing matter/mass that the dark matter lot won't stop banging on about.
Thoughts?