Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: common_sense_seeker on 25/09/2008 13:57:46
-
I believe that in order for galaxies to maintain their general disc shape over billions of years, steller DM gravity has to be directional. It shows that DM gravity of a star is much higher in the ecliptic, surely? Do any computer galaxy modellers agree that this might be possible?
-
I believe that in order for galaxies to maintain their general disc shape over billions of years, steller DM gravity has to be directional. It shows that DM gravity of a star is much higher in the ecliptic, surely? Do any computer galaxy modellers agree that this might be possible?
There's no need to invoke directional gravity; normal gravity it's enough. The disk shape is due to centrifugal force.
-
"Do any computer galaxy modellers agree that this might be possible?"
What about the rest of us? If we don't agree (and I don't) do we not count?
-
I believe that in order for galaxies to maintain their general disc shape over billions of years, steller DM gravity has to be directional. It shows that DM gravity of a star is much higher in the ecliptic, surely? Do any computer galaxy modellers agree that this might be possible?
There's no need to invoke directional gravity; normal gravity it's enough. The disk shape is due to centrifugal force.
Why wouldn't the stars slowly spread higher or lower from the galactic plain then? Centrifugal force can't explain this.
-
I believe that in order for galaxies to maintain their general disc shape over billions of years, steller DM gravity has to be directional. It shows that DM gravity of a star is much higher in the ecliptic, surely? Do any computer galaxy modellers agree that this might be possible?
There's no need to invoke directional gravity; normal gravity it's enough. The disk shape is due to centrifugal force.
Why wouldn't the stars slowly spread higher or lower from the galactic plain then? Centrifugal force can't explain this.
Why should they do it? Gravitational force makes them come back if they try to go away of the plane.
-
I'm sure that Chaos Theory would predict a wandering of the stars above and below the galactic plane much more than is observed with the standard theory of gravity.
-
I know people who are equally sure of the existence of God. By an odd coincidence they also offer no evidence.
Are you putting forward a theory, or starting a new religion?
If you can't provide evidence it's certainly nothing to do with science.
Chaos theroy doesn't suddenly push things the size of stars about , in violation of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Why bring it up?
Are you just making word salad?
-
What qualifies 'highly directional' in this context?
-
I'm sure that Chaos Theory would predict a wandering of the stars above and below the galactic plane much more than is observed with the standard theory of gravity.
They do spread - just not very much.
-
The Earth's gravitational field is higher at the poles than at the equator. But there is more mass at the equator due to the equitorial bulge. How can more mass have less gravity? The textbook explanations don't even mention the extra mass. I propose that this divergence is even more pronounced with stars, so that a star's gravity is stronger through it's poles and weaker about it's ecliptic plane. This would give a good explanation for the disc shapes of galaxies remaining intact for billions of years in my mind.
-
You seem to be carrying on the same discussion on two threads.
Why do you think the Earth has a bulge aroung its equator? It's because it's SPINNING. That, and the fact that it's further from the centre of mass of the Earth, accounts for weight being less at the equator, too.
Do you know nothing?
I'll bet you believe in the tooth fairy, too.
-
Show me your maths proof then
-
Show me your maths proof then
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFLMAO
-
"The textbook explanations don't even mention the extra mass. "
The mass of the earth is exactly the same whether you are at the pole or the equator. Since there is no extra mass, the textbooks don't mention it (a bit like the tooth fairy).
What maths would you like me to do with this "extra mass" (ie zero) to show that its effect is zero?