Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analyzes galaxy rotation curves, revealing shear's impact on amplitude coupling.
This work presents a systematic empirical and theoretical analysis of galaxy rotation curves within the RMB (Space–Matter–Motion) framework. A log-potential model of the form v_model^2 = v_bar^2 + A_RMB * r / (r + r_c) is fitted to 107 galaxies from the SPARC database. The results show that the RMB amplitude scales tightly with the rotational kinetic energy: A_RMB ≈ alpha * v_flat^2 with a global median alpha0 = 0.990 and a scatter sigma(log alpha) = 0.326 dex. A partial-correlation analysis identifies the normalised velocity shear S_mean = average of (r/v * dv/dr) as the dominant secondary predictor of the residual amplitude scatter (r_partial = 0.420, p = 0.00001, FDR-corrected). This leads to a shear-dependent coupling of the form: alpha = alpha0 * exp(delta * S_mean) with delta = 0.828. The scale radius r_c is found to be independent of all tested baryonic proxies (disc scale length, acceleration scale, HI mass, effective radius). It is therefore treated as a free RMB field-state parameter, likely encoding the cosmological embedding of each galaxy at formation epoch. The field-theoretic metric coupling epsilon_met = g(Y0 / s_tilde^2) / g(Y0) is derived directly from the Lagrangian without additional free functions. All stability conditions are satisfied, and the lensing-slip constraint |eta - 1| < 0.025 holds for chi <= 0.1. A three-channel structure (matter, time, lensing) is identified. The RMB contribution to the local clock rate is of order 10^-8 to 10^-7 on galactic scales. Galaxy lensing time delays are identified as the most accessible near-term observational test of the model. This repository contains the full analysis pipeline, processed data products, and figures required to reproduce the results. Data Source:The analysis uses data from the SPARC database (Lelli et al. 2016).All credit for the original observations remains with the SPARC team.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davide Dellomonaco (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: