Post by: Dave Lev on 11/05/2022 16:41:25
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole
"Astronomers led by researchers at the University of Arizona spotted the brilliant quasar about 13.03 billion light-years from Earth"
"This quasar, called J0313-1806, can be dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang (the universe at this time was a mere 5% of its current age), making it the most distant and earliest quasar ever found. This quasar also hosts a supermassive black hole that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns. "
So, we discuss about a SMBH that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns.
It had been dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang.
So how did this SMBH get so massive so quickly (as stated):
"Quasars like J0313-1806 that already accumulated such immensely massive black holes in such a short time in the early universe have puzzled scientists for years. While black holes can be created when stars explode in supernova and collapse and smaller black holes can merge, eventually building up mass, these ultra-massive early-universe quasars remain mysterious. How did they get so massive so quickly?"
They actually set a calculation:
"In fact, the team thinks that, even if the black hole formed as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang and grew as fast as possible, it would still only be 10,000 times as massive as our sun — and it's 1.6 billion times as massive. "
So what shall we understand from that data:
1. BH can't be created immediately after the big bang. At the best case it could start 100 M Y after the bang.
2. In 570 M years (670-100), at the best case it could get to 10K Sun mass.
Therefore, in order to get that 1.6 B (1,600,000K) Sun mass there is a need for
1,600,000K / 10K * 570 MY = 160,000 * 570MY = 91,200,000MY = 91,200 Billion years.
Hence, based on the data we can calculate that there is a need for 91,200 Billion years to set that kind of SMBH.
That observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.
Therefore, the age of our real universe must be significantly bigger than just 13.8 B years.
However, as expected - those puzzled scientists don't accept any observation that contradicts the BBT.
Therefore, instead of accepting the data and agree that there is a fatal error in the Universe age based on the Big bang theory, now they look for some idea to close the gap.
"This tells you that no matter what you do, the seed of this black hole must have formed by a different mechanism," co-author Xiaohui Fan, a professor and associate head of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Arizona.
My message to this professor is as follow:
No, there is no different mechanism and there is no need to be puzzled.
You just have to open your eyes and accept the truth data AS IS.
Based on that you should understand that the age of the Universe must be significantly higher than 13.8 BY.
This should be the real meaning of truth!
Therefore, do you all agree that this message proves that the real age of the Universe should be very high or even infinity?
Or do you prefer to ignore the message and deal with the messenger?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/05/2022 19:47:04
https://www.space.com/universe-first-stars-older-than-thought.html
"Researchers probing the early universe found no sign of first-generation stars in galaxies that existed just 500 million to 1 billion years after the Big Bang."
"It has taken the light from these background galaxies 12.8 billion to 13.3 billion years to reach Earth — meaning that these objects are time capsules harboring lots of information about the early universe, including what types of stars were shining back then.
"We found no evidence of these first-generation Population III stars in this cosmic time interval," Bhatawdekar said. "
So, we didn't discover the first-generation stars in those distant galaxies that had been formed just 500 MY after the bang.
This is one more indication that the whole idea of first-generation Population III stars is just imagination.
However, as expected, puzzled scientists won't give up.
"Population III stars and the first galaxies must therefore be older still — so old that they're beyond Hubble's reach. But NASA's $9.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch next year, may be able to spot them, study team members said."
So let me tell to those puzzled scientists:
Even if you would have a 10^1000 Billion $ Space Telescope, that can observe the entire Universe up to the infinity - you won't find even one first-generation Population III star.
That is one more evidence that something must be wrong in the Big Bang Theory!.
Post by: Origin on 11/05/2022 21:01:22
That observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.Not it doesn't. It proves that we don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH. There are however several hypotheses for their formation.
Post by: Origin on 11/05/2022 21:09:55
This is one more indication that the whole idea of first-generation Population III stars is just imagination.No, this does not mean populations stars are imagination.
"Population III stars and the first galaxies must therefore be older still — so old that they're beyond Hubble's reach. But NASA's $9.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch next year, may be able to spot them, study team members said."Well, I guess we will see before too long.
So let me tell to those puzzled scientists:Here we go again with Dave's overinflated ego....
Even if you would have a 10^1000 Billion $ Space Telescope, that can observe the entire Universe up to the infinity - you won't find even one first-generation Population III star.
That is one more evidence that something must be wrong in the Big Bang Theory!.
Post by: evan_au on 11/05/2022 22:48:07
Quote from: Dave Lev
the whole idea of first-generation Population III stars is just imaginationWe know that stars gradually turn Hydrogen into Helium, through nuclear fusion. Our Sun is doing it right now, with a composition around 73% H, 25% He, and a smattering of other elements totaling 2%.
If the star is bigger, it distributes elements like carbon when it goes red-giant. It if it is really big, it distributes elements like iron and nickel when it explodes as a supernova.
So the concentration of elements higher than Helium on the periodic table is increasing over time.
- The Sun has a tiny amount of Carbon, Iron and Nickel, but it didn't produce them itself - it isn't massive enough.
- The Sun must have collected them in its raw materials - which included stars that previously went supernova.
Now run the clock backwards in time. Further back in time (or look at red-dwarf stars, which live longer), you should see some stars with lower concentrations of elements like Carbon & Iron than the Sun (the prime Population I star). And astronomers do find examples of these Population II stars.
Look back far enough, and you might find stars that are 100% Hydrogen - only astronomers have not yet found any examples.
- And they don't expect to, either.
- Looking at the CMBR, cosmologists estimate that the early universe was hot enough to fuse some Hydrogen into Helium: It is thought that the primordial ratio of Hydrogen to Helium was around 75:25, with any higher elements (eg Lithium) being extremely rare.
So if James Webb finds some stars that are 100% Hydrogen, you will have made your point. Let's hope it takes some clear pictures with good spectra!
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2022 03:25:25
Thanks OriginThat observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.Not it doesn't. It proves that we don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH. There are however several hypotheses for their formation.
As you don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH:
Could it be that you don't know exact process for how SMBH really works?
Or you don't know just because there is a severe contradiction between the current theory to the observation?
What is the chance that your guess is incorrect?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:47:04Well, I guess we will see before too long.
"Population III stars and the first galaxies must therefore be older still — so old that they're beyond Hubble's reach. But NASA's $9.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch next year, may be able to spot them, study team members said."
Can you please specify the time frame for "before too long"?
In other words, how long do we have to wait before you would understand that your understanding is just incorrect?
1K Years? 1 MY or infinity?
We know that stars gradually turn Hydrogen into Helium, through nuclear fusion. Our Sun is doing it right now, with a composition around 73% H, 25% He, and a smattering of other elements totaling 2%.Thanks Evan
If the star is bigger, it distributes elements like carbon when it goes red-giant.
The nuclear fusion activity in a star is very clear.
However it can't generate heavy elements/atoms
It if it is really big, it distributes elements like iron and nickel when it explodes as a supernova.For elements like iron and nickel a supernova is needed.
However, that supernova is not good enough for heaver elements/atoms as gold and platinum:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3815
"In 2016 a tiny, faint galaxy, a satellite of the Milky Way called Reticulum II (Ret II), provided evidence that the supernova-explosion scenario that had long been favored could not be the main mechanism for the production of the heaviest elements. Instead, the chemical composition of the stars in Ret II strongly suggests that neutron-star mergers are the universe’s way to make elements such as gold and platinum."
Actually it is stated that:
"But even the recent LIGO–Virgo detection of two neutron stars coalescing has added only one piece to the puzzle of understanding the origin of the heaviest elements."
So do you agree that "we don't know the exact process" for the origin of the heaviest elements?
Therefore, do you confirm that even the outcome of supernova is not good enough for the Sun and the solar system?
What would you understand if you would discover that in any star in the entire universe there are gold, platinum and all the other heaviest elements? You have called it - "smattering of other elements totaling 2%"
Look back far enough, and you might find stars that are 100% Hydrogen - only astronomers have not yet found any examples.
You may hope to find stars that are 100% Hydrogen
However, if you won't find them - Never & ever, would you reconsider your theory?
Or the theory is above any observation?
Please remember that for any contradiction between theory to observation you can use the following argument:
we don't know the exact process...However, I can always claim:
As you confirm that you don't know, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/05/2022 08:07:48
No, there is no different mechanism
How do you know that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2022 13:36:42
Real theory can set only one mechanism.No, there is no different mechanismHow do you know that?
For example: gravity theory.
Based on the mechanism of this theory the sun completes one galactic circuit in about 220 million to 250 million years.
There is no other mechanism.
Therefore, if we observe a star (with the same size/radius as the sun) that completes one galactic circuit in just one earth year then we should understand that there is a severe mistake in our theory.
I didn't set the BBT theory and I didn't set the mechanism of this theory.
Our puzzled scientists claim that based on the mechanism of this theory then 670 My after the Big Bang, the maximal size of a SMBH could only be 10,000 solar mass:
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole
"In fact, the team thinks that, even if the black hole formed as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang and grew as fast as possible, it would still only be 10,000 times as massive as our sun — and it's 1.6 billion times as massive. "
Therefore, if we could discover that the maximal size of this distant-quasar is only 10,000 solar mass and there are many distant Population III stars, we could prove that the mechanism of the BBT theory is 100% correct.
However, the discovery of the real size of this quasar fully contradicts the current BBT mechanism.
Also the missing distant Population III star is a major problem for the BBT mechanism.
Don't you agree that our mission is to fit the theory to the observation and not vice versa?
If so, why those puzzled scientists always try to fit the observation to the BBT theory?
Why they don't even consider a possibility that there might be a problem with the BBT theory/mechanism?
Sorry, In real theory - there is no room for puzzled scientists or other imagination mechanism.
The observation is above any kind of theory.
One mechanism per theory even if it is called BBT.
If the observation meets the mechanism of the theory - then the theory is 100% correct.
If the doesn't, then please open your eyes and consider different theory with different mechanism.
Post by: Origin on 12/05/2022 14:40:10
Thanks OriginWhat do by "how it works"?
As you don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH:
Could it be that you don't know exact process for how SMBH really works?
Or you don't know just because there is a severe contradiction between the current theory to the observation?Possible, but it is more likely that SMBH will fit into the BBT since the BBT has so much evidence.
What is the chance that your guess is incorrect?Very little chance.
Can you please specify the time frame for "before too long"?It depends on when the researchers that are working on this will have time on the James Webb telescope. I would think it would be a year or two.
In other words, how long do we have to wait before you would understand that your understanding is just incorrect?
1K Years? 1 MY or infinity?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2022 19:07:37
Sorry, there are only two options:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:25:25Possible, but it is more likely that SMBH will fit into the BBT since the BBT has so much evidence.
Or you don't know just because there is a severe contradiction between the current theory to the observation?
Fit or not fit.
If the theory fits into the new discovery/observations (based on its current mechanism) - then the theory is correct.
If it doesn't fit, and you must look for other mechanism - then your theory is wrong.
Once you offer different mechanism for your theory - then it is your obligation to offer updated name for your theory.
You can call it BBT Version i.
However, once you change/update the mechanism of your theory, then you can only use that updated mechanism.
In other words - you can't use one mechanism to confirm one observation and other mechanism to confirm other observation.
So, if those puzzled scientists understand that there is a severe problem in their BBT theory/mechanism and there is a need for new mechanism, then it is their obligation to abandon the old mechanism, change the name of the theory (for example, BBTi) and show how the updated mechanism can work on all observations.
I can promise you that even after 1K or 2M years we won't find any distant Population III star.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:25:25It depends on when the researchers that are working on this will have time on the James Webb telescope. I would think it would be a year or two.
Can you please specify the time frame for "before too long"?
In other words, how long do we have to wait before you would understand that your understanding is just incorrect?
1K Years? 1 MY or infinity?
.
However, you want two years and I give you 10 years.
So, do you confirm that if we won't find even a single distant Population III star in the coming 10 years then there is a problem with the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2022 19:13:54
Once you offer different mechanism for your theory - then it is your obligation to offer updated name for your theory.Bollocks.
You can call it BBT Version i.
People still talk about Darwinian evolution even though it has changed a lot since his day.
Why do you think the name of a theory is so important?
Post by: Origin on 12/05/2022 22:33:04
Sorry, there are only two options:Obviously.
Fit or not fit.
If the theory fits into the new discovery/observations (based on its current mechanism) - then the theory is correct.
If it doesn't fit, and you must look for other mechanism - then your theory is wrong.
Once you offer different mechanism for your theory - then it is your obligation to offer updated name for your theory.Not sure what mechanism is mentioned in the BBT, but as long as the bottom line says the universe expanded from a very compact area about 14 billion years ago then the BBT stands.
You can call it BBT Version i.
Post by: Origin on 12/05/2022 22:50:49
I can promise you that even after 1K or 2M years we won't find any distant Population III star.Of course you can't promise that.
However, you want two years and I give you 10 years.
You can hope that happens (for what ever reason).
So, do you confirm that if we won't find even a single distant Population III star in the coming 10 years then there is a problem with the BBT?No I can't confirm that. It may be a problem or not. I would say it depends on what discoveries are made in the next 10 years. I would personally be surprised if there were no population III stars. But if there aren't that would an unexpected and exciting discovery
Post by: Kryptid on 13/05/2022 00:17:18
Real theory can set only one mechanism.
Provably wrong. In chemistry, for example, there are many different mechanisms that can form water. You can create it by burning hydrocarbons, through the joining of two monosaccharide molecules into a disaccharide, through the fermentation of glucose, through the reaction of a base with an acid, and so on. So there are many different mechanisms that can get you the same result.
Nowhere does the Big Bang theory state that black holes can only form through one mechanism (like the collapse of a single star). If you disagree, then provide an authoritative source that backs up your claim that the Big Bang does only allow one such mechanism.
Post by: evan_au on 13/05/2022 01:04:24
Quote from: Dave Lev
Sorry, there are only two options:There is another (more common) option: Evolve.
Fit or not fit.
- Tweak the theory to account for the new observations, making it an even more successful theory, but keeping the name the same.
- In Evolutionary terms, this makes the theory even more fit!
It's only when someone discovers a major new mechanism that the theory might be given a new name.
- CMBR was a major new source of data, but the theory retained the same name: BBT
- Cosmic Inflation was a major new mechanism, but the theory retained the same name: BBT
Quote
For example: gravity theory.We already know of one star that completes a galactic orbit in 16 years.
Based on the mechanism of this theory the sun completes one galactic circuit in about 220 million to 250 million years.
Therefore, if we observe a star (with the same size/radius as the sun) that completes one galactic circuit in just one earth year then we should understand that there is a severe mistake in our theory.
- With the James Webb telescope, we should be able to see smaller stars making faster galactic circuits.
- But this doesn't imply that there is a problem with the current theory of gravity.
- It just tells us that there is a Super-Massive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy (and allows us to estimate its mass, even though we can't see it, as yet).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star))
Quote
So do you agree that "we don't know the exact process" for the origin of the heaviest elements?Astrophysicists expect that a number of processes will contribute to each of the heavy elements. There is no single "exact process"
- This periodic table even gives the current best guess about the mix of processes by which different elements were formed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_reactions
Post by: evan_au on 13/05/2022 04:09:07
Quote from: evan_au
there is a Super-Massive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy (even though we can't see it, as yet)I spoke too soon. Today, the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration released it's image of the "shadow" of Sgr A*, seen against the glow of its accretion disk.
See: https://astronomy.com/news/2022/05/black-hole-at-heart-of-milky-way-imaged-for-first-time
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2022 04:58:11
I assume that you discuss about S2.QuoteQuoteWe already know of one star that completes a galactic orbit in 16 years.
For example: gravity theory.
Based on the mechanism of this theory the sun completes one galactic circuit in about 220 million to 250 million years.
Therefore, if we observe a star (with the same size/radius as the sun) that completes one galactic circuit in just one earth year then we should understand that there is a severe mistake in our theory.
However, S2 radius is totally different from the sun radius.
Quote from: Dave LevThere is s clear reason for the "Evolve"
Sorry, there are only two options:
Fit or not fit.
There is another (more common) option: Evolve.
It is called - "No fit".
So whenever there is "no fit" between the observation to the mechanism of the theory, we are forced to make a change in the theory that is called: "Evolve".
Therefore, I fully agree with you that there must be "Evolve" in the theory; however it comes with changes in the theory itself.
- In Evolutionary terms, this makes the theory even more fit!Sure.
Whenever our puzzled scientists discover observation with "no fit" they are forced to make the Evolutionary terms for better fit.
- Tweak the theory to account for the new observations, making it an even more successful theory, but keeping the name the same.Sorry
Once you make a change in the theory - you must make a change in the name.
I compare a theory to a software.
A good theory sets the correct process/terms for the Universe.
A good software sets the correct process/terms for the electronic device.
Software must come with "version".
Each version makes it "even more fit".
So, as there is "Evolve" in the software, there also must be "Evolve" in the theory.
However, each "Evolve" must come with new version.
This version is mandatory.
It is requested to verify each new version from A to Z.
In the same token, each time that our puzzled scientists make a change in the BBT theory they must give it a new version name and verify that it works perfectly from A to Z.
It's only when someone discovers a major new mechanism that the theory might be given a new name.Thanks.
- CMBR was a major new source of data, but the theory retained the same name: BBT
- Cosmic Inflation was a major new mechanism, but the theory retained the same name: BBT
So the name should be as follow (let me use the year date as the name of the version):
BBT (v.1923) - first BBT version
BBT (v. 1967?) - adding the Inflation mechanism
BBT (V. ?) - adding the dark matter mechanism
BBT (V. ?) - adding the dark energy mechanism
BBT (V. 2022) - adding the Super massive SMBH mechanism.
It is perfectly Ok for our scientists to offer this V.2022 version for the BBT, however once they offer if they must verify if it works ok from A to Z.
As an example:
In the article it is stated:
"In order for the black hole to have grown to the size we see with J0313-1806, it would have to have started out with a seed black hole of at least 10,000 solar masses, and that would only be possible in the direct collapse scenario."
Hence - there is a need for significant change in BBT v.2022 it is called: "direct collapse scenario".
However, if the "direct collapse scenario" is correct, then why can't we assume that all/most of the matter in the early universe "direct collapse" into just one infinite SMBH seed?
If you insist for just 10,000 solar mass per seed - then please tell us how you do it.
Do you give a call to that "scenario" asking them to set a massive SMBH seed but not too massive?
Even if you can do it, why only few seeds?
Why not unlimited no. of those kinds of 10,000 solar mass seeds?
Please try to verify how under those massive SMBH seeds the updated BBT theory version could work.
Please remember that for each BBT version it is needed to justify also the mathematics.
With those massive SMBH seeds, how can we still claim that the early universe is isotropic and homogenous?
Without it there is no mathematics to confirm the updated BBT theory.
Therefore, before those puzzled scientists tells us how the "direct collapse scenario" overcome the quasar observation, the must verify if that idea can overcome the mathematics.
So, they can't just take V.1927 and confirm it by mathematics and then use V.2022 just to confirm the Quasar new observation.
Please be aware that the "direct collapse scenario" is based on dark matter idea.
However,do we know how the that dark matter & dark energy in the Universe had been created by the BBT so early?
Actually the BBT is all about a theory for the creation of ordinary matter.
However, the ordinary matter is less than 5% from all the matter/energy in the Universe.
So, how can we call a theory for just 5% of the matter in the universe as a theory for the Universe?
Sorry - if our puzzled scientists can't explain in the BBT the clear creation of the dark matter and dark energy and prove it by mathematics– then this BBT theory is useless
Therefore:
1. Would you kindly highlight the major changes per date in the BBT versions?
2. Would you kindly tell us how BBT v.2022 can fit in all the parameters of the Universe from A to Z (including mathematics, CMBR, inflation process, dark matter, dark energy...)
Post by: Kryptid on 13/05/2022 09:38:31
Once you make a change in the theory - you must make a change in the name.
Please provide an authoritative source that backs this claim up. I'm not aware of any organization of scientists that stated this.
Post by: evan_au on 13/05/2022 10:41:38
Quote from: Dave Lev
I compare a theory to a software.Software that is released a single organisation may have a single version number.
Software must come with "version".
- But science is not a single organisation
- A theory is more like an open-source software project, where everyone who is interested gets their own copy, and make their own favorite tweaks, which others may or may not adopt, and which may or may not get merged into the "main line". Such software does not have a single version, but has many variants circulating independently (like a family tree of COVID-19, from https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/global/6m !)
COVID_Family_Tree_May-2022.jpg (183.71 kB . 949x928 - viewed 3056 times)- So a theory cannot have a single version number (Although Einstein's Relativity comes close, with a Special and a General version)
Quote
Please be aware that the "direct collapse scenario" is based on dark matter idea.Dark Matter would have contributed considerably to the gravitational attraction in the early universe. But it's not central to the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_collapse_black_hole
Quote
However, do we know how the that dark matter & dark energy in the Universe had been created by the BBT so early?Current computer models of the Big Bang have shown that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are required for the universe to form in the manner we observe. These models have informed deductions about what are the percentages of each.
So, how can we call a theory for just 5% of the matter in the universe as a theory for the Universe?
- So actually, these computer simulations of the BBT account for all of the (known) mass-energy of the universe.
Description of the video: https://esahubble.org/videos/heic1005a/
Post by: Origin on 13/05/2022 12:49:01
"In order for the black hole to have grown to the size we see with J0313-1806, it would have to have started out with a seed black hole of at least 10,000 solar masses, and that would only be possible in the direct collapse scenario."I'm pretty sure the astrophysics community doesn't care about your concerns about the name of the theory.
Hence - there is a need for significant change in BBT v.2022 it is called: "direct collapse scenario"
Sorry - if our puzzled scientists can't explain in the BBT the clear creation of the dark matter and dark energy and prove it by mathematics– then this BBT theory is uselessNo, the BBT is a very good theory that has and continues to provide a lot of insight into the universe.
I know you don't "like" the BBT (for what ever reason) but that is beside the point. Scientist don't "like" the BBT, they recognize that it does a good job describing the evolution of the universe and the will continue to use it until a better theory comes along.
Post by: Origin on 13/05/2022 12:53:24
Therefore:Dave, you are the one who has this obsession with the 'evil' BBT so you should waste your time on this, not us.
1. Would you kindly highlight the major changes per date in the BBT versions?
2. Would you kindly tell us how BBT v.2022 can fit in all the parameters of the Universe from A to Z (including mathematics, CMBR, inflation process, dark matter, dark energy...)
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 05:44:28
Dark Matter would have contributed considerably to the gravitational attraction in the early universe. But it's not central to the theory.It is not fully clear to me how that process works without dark matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_collapse_black_hole
There is no clear indication about the math that should support that kind of activity.
It is even stated:
"Direct collapse black holes are generally thought to be extremely rare objects in the high-redshift Universe, because the three fundamental conditions for their formation (see above in section Formation) are challenging to be met all together in the same gas cloud"
Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?
Please be aware that we discuss about the conditions at era of 100,000 M years after the bang.
Based on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.
So, we actually discuss on an era when the conditions (temp, density, energy, ...) couldn't support the existence of even a single atom.
If I understand the BBT correctly, under those conditions stars couldn't been formed at that era.
So, how could it be that while there is not even a single atom or a single star in the entire early universe, suddenly out of nowhere we get those kinds of massive black hole seeds?
Sorry - without real explanation and real math confirmation (and no dark matter) that process is just not realistic.
Let's assume that this process is real.
Why the same process can't form less massive black hole seeds?
Why not many BH or even infinite tinny black hole seeds?
Why significant portion of the particles that existed during the 100,000 My after the bang era didn't end in some sort of a BH?
I also wonder how those kinds of 10,000 solar mass SMBH seeds could be transformed into 1.6 Billion quasar in just 570 My.
We already know that the SMBH is messy eater.
https://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater."
So how that 10,000 solar mass SMBH seed could be transformed into 1,600,000,000 solar mass quasar in just 570 My (160,000 times bigger)?
If that process is real then what is the expected mass of the quasar after more 570 MY (at age of 670+570 = 1,240 MY)?
Could it be - 1,600,000,000 * 160,000 = 2.56 10^14 solar mass?
Actually by today (after more 12BY), that quasar should multiply its mass by 10^21. Hence:
2.56 10^14 * 10^21 = 2.56 10^35 solar mass
Is it real or just imagination?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 10:48:41
Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?No.
Because we see black holes.
Post by: evan_au on 14/05/2022 11:18:40
Quote from: Dave Lev
Based on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.You are off by a factor of 106.
According to BBT, the plasma cooled enough to form atoms around 380,000 years after the Big Bang (not 380,000 My).
- This is the era from which we see the CMBR.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 11:23:59
Quote from: Dave LevBased on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.You are off by a factor of 106.
According to BBT, the plasma cooled enough to form atoms around 380,000 years after the Big Bang (not 380,000 My).
- This is the era from which we see the CMBR.
Thanks for the update.
However my following questions are still valid:
Let's assume that this process is real.
Why the same process can't form less massive black hole seeds?
Why not many BH or even infinite tinny black hole seeds?
Why significant portion of the particles that existed during the 100,000 My after the bang era didn't end in some sort of a BH?
I also wonder how those kinds of 10,000 solar mass SMBH seeds could be transformed into 1.6 Billion quasar in just 570 My.
We already know that the SMBH is messy eater.
https://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater."
So how that 10,000 solar mass SMBH seed could be transformed into 1,600,000,000 solar mass quasar in just 570 My (160,000 times bigger)?
If that process is real then what is the expected mass of the quasar after more 570 MY (at age of 670+570 = 1,240 MY)?
Could it be - 1,600,000,000 * 160,000 = 2.56 10^14 solar mass?
Actually by today (after more 12BY), that quasar should multiply its mass by 10^21. Hence:
2.56 10^14 * 10^21 = 2.56 10^35 solar mass
Is it real or just imagination?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 12:00:57
Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?No.
Because we see black holes.
We clearly see that our SMBH is a messy eater.
The estimated age of that SMBH is at least 12By, and we also know its total mass - 4 10^6 solar mass.
Actually all the SMBHs are messy eater.
We see millions of them.
So we can easily calculate the estimate growth rate of a SMBH.
Let's assume that by average we get 4 M solar mass per 12BY.
Based on that understanding we can estimate the time frame that is needed for a SMBH to gain 1.6 B solar mass.
1.6 B / 4 M * 12 BY = 400 BY.
Therefore, when we observe a SMBH with 1.6 B solar mass, we can easily understand that the real age of that object is around 400BY.
However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.
I hope that it is very clear to all of us that the BBT is above any observation.
Therefore, instead of accepting the simple understanding that this most-distant-quasar age is about 400 BY, we try to invent some unrealistic "scenario" in order to keep the time frame of the BBT.
There is another (more common) option: Evolve.Sorry, "evolve" means updating the theory according to the observation.
- Tweak the theory to account for the new observations, making it an even more successful theory, but keeping the name the same.
- In Evolutionary terms, this makes the theory even more fit!
However our puzzled scientists are updating the observation in order to fit into the requested BBT age.
Are you sure that this is the correct meaning of "evolve"?
Why do they nail the age of the Universe??
Why they are so afraid to understand that the age of the universe is significantly higher than just 13.8 By?
What kind of catastrophic would happen to us if the BBT took place 100 B or 400B years ago instead of 13.8 BY?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 12:12:06
However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 14:59:48
Do you say it about the current mainstream calculation?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:00:57For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.
H. L. Mencken
Our puzzled scientists go on the very simple solution that is called the Hubble's Law
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p5.html
"You can actually calculate an estimate for the age of the Universe from Hubble's Law."
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
I claim that there is a fatal mistake in this simple calculation.
Our scientists have no clue about the real size of the universe or its shape.
They don't know how far is the furthest galaxy from us.
So how could they get any real information about the age of the Universe from the galaxies in the space while they have no clue about the size & shape of the space?
I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.
Therefore, when they are using this unrealistic simple formula, they got a severe mistake.
It is like getting the size of a specific country from the age of the people that lives there.
So unrealistic.
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?
Sorry - that simple calculation is a pure nonsense!
Thanks again for your statement:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 15:14:54
I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.Why would you like to remind me of something which isn't true?
I claim that there is a fatal mistake in this simple calculation.The calculation does not involve the size or shape of the universe.
Our scientists have no clue about the real size of the universe or its shape.
So it doesn't matter that we don't know them.
So please tell us what you think is wrong with the calculation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 15:15:54
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?Because they made the measurements, and that's what the data says.
A better question would be why do you ignore the data?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 15:16:22
It is like getting the size of a specific country from the age of the people that lives there.No.
So unrealistic.
It is not.
Post by: Origin on 14/05/2022 15:17:54
So we can easily calculate the estimate growth rate of a SMBH.So you have proved if you make a stupid assumption you get a stupid answer. I'm pretty sure everybody already knew that.
Let's assume that by average we get 4 M solar mass per 12BY.
Based on that understanding we can estimate the time frame that is needed for a SMBH to gain 1.6 B solar mass.
1.6 B / 4 M * 12 BY = 400 BY
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 16:16:09
The calculation does not involve the size or shape of the universe.Yes it does.
So it doesn't matter that we don't know them.
So please tell us what you think is wrong with the calculation.
That exactly is the fatal mistake.
So please would you kindly show the data about the real size/Shape of the Universe space?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48Because they made the measurements, and that's what the data says.
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?
What is the distance to the furthest galaxy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 16:17:33
Don't know; don't care.So please would you kindly show the data about the real size/Shape of the Universe space?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48Because they made the measurements, and that's what the data says.
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?
What is the distance to the furthest galaxy?
Why did you ask me?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 16:31:38
Anyone that ignores the observation makes a stupid assumption.So we can easily calculate the estimate growth rate of a SMBH.So you have proved if you make a stupid assumption you get a stupid answer. I'm pretty sure everybody already knew that.
Let's assume that by average we get 4 M solar mass per 12BY.
Based on that understanding we can estimate the time frame that is needed for a SMBH to gain 1.6 B solar mass.
1.6 B / 4 M * 12 BY = 400 BY
Why do you think that we should ignore the clear observation of those messy eater SMBH?
Why do you think that the most-distant-quasar can eat its total food in just 570 MY while all the other SMBH that we clearly observe can't eat even 0.00...1 in a similar time frame?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 16:34:17
Don't know; don't care.As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.
Post by: Origin on 14/05/2022 16:43:05
Anyone that ignores the observation makes a stupid assumption.So stop doing that.
Why do you think that we should ignore the clear observation of those messy eater SMBH?What do you mean by messy eater?
Why do you think that the most-distant-quasar can eat its total food in just 570 MY while all the other SMBH that we clearly observe can't eat even 0.00...1 in a similar time frame?I don't think that. Why do you think, "while all the other SMBH that we clearly observe can't eat even 0.00...1 in a similar time frame"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 16:57:10
Why did you ignore my question?Don't know; don't care.As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.
Is it because you know it shows that you are wrong?
Why did you ask me?
Post by: Halc on 14/05/2022 17:13:08
As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.Excellent idea. You obviously don't care to show any knowledge of science and don't care to appear to learn, so per your conclusion above, you shouldn't be telling us that you don't know and don't care.
So one chance: Why shouldn't I lock this topic?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 17:58:43
Why shouldn't I lock this topic?Perhaps he should get a chance to explain why he thinks that because we don't know the size and shape of the universe, we can't use this maths
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .which doesn't mention the size and shape of the universe.
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
I have to say I'm really quite curious about that.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/05/2022 21:54:15
I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.
Not so. If the Universe started off with an infinite size, then it would presumably still be infinite in size even if its age is finite. Let's not confuse the total Universe with the observable Universe. The observable Universe can have a finite size while the Universe as a whole can potentially have (and always have had) an infinite size.
Post by: evan_au on 14/05/2022 23:12:50
Quote from: Dave Lev
Why the same process (which formed SMBH) can't form less massive black hole seeds?Physicists are still open to the idea that there may be black holes of many sizes formed in the Big Bang.
- These might have formed when the universe was itself very dense (even denser than quark soup), so it wouldn't have taken so much of a density fluctuation to produce a black hole.
- These would have formed much earlier in the Big Bang timeline than the black holes implied by the Direct Collapse scenario, which operates on neutral atoms
The really tiny black holes won't be around today, because they would have evaporated long ago by Hawking radiation.
- However, ones that started out merely small could still be around today (just a bit smaller)
- Indeed, black holes were an early contender for "Dark Matter", but stellar-mass black holes were ruled out by the low rate of microlensing events
- Micro black holes are still theoretically possible - we just don't have any confirmed sightings (yet)
- Experimental scientists are still actively searching for primordial black holes (which then places limits on how many there might be in the universe today)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole
Post by: evan_au on 15/05/2022 09:45:11
Quote from: evan_au
A theory is ...like a family tree of COVID-19There is a significant difference here between scientific theories and COVID-19:
- COVID-19 continually adds new mutations on top of its "parent" virus, resulting in a divergent evolution. Some similar mutations are seen, but they are outnumbered by the dissimilar mutations
- Scientific theories can "cross-breed", taking the best parts of other theories, and mixing in the a particular researcher's theoretical tweaks or experimental results. This will result in a degree of convergence over time which is not seen in COVID-19.
But the overall result may look similar, with one theory slowly taking over, and then being supplanted by an even more successful theory. A high-level graph of this process with COVID-19 is as follows:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
See: https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/global/all-time
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2022 14:52:43
Sorry, i'm not sure that I understand this answer.I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.
Not so. If the Universe started off with an infinite size, then it would presumably still be infinite in size even if its age is finite. Let's not confuse the total Universe with the observable Universe. The observable Universe can have a finite size while the Universe as a whole can potentially have (and always have had) an infinite size.
Based on the BBT the Universe started from "Planck epoch".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.[2] The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of our universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_early_universe#Planck_epoch
"Planck epoch
c. 0 seconds (13.799 ± 0.021 Gya): Planck epoch begins: earliest meaningful time. The Big Bang occurs in which ordinary space and time develop out of a primeval state (possibly a virtual particle or false vacuum) described by a quantum theory of gravity or "Theory of Everything". All matter and energy of the entire visible universe is contained in a hot, dense point (gravitational singularity), a billionth the size of a nuclear particle."
So, how that "gravitational singularity, a billionth the size of a nuclear particle" could suddenly be considered as Infinite space without breaking the BBT theory?
We also know that there is no empty space with no energy. Therefore, if the Universe started off with an infinite size then by definition it should have some sort of energy.
How the BBT could work at the same moment on the entire infinite space?
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity")."
If you start the Bang when the Universe is already infinite - then don't you agree that there is a meaning for time and space.
So, how can we claim about concentrated cosmos while this cosmos is already infinite?
Perhaps he should get a chance to explain why he thinks that because we don't know the size and shape of the universe, we can't use this mathsThanks for giving me the chance
If you start the Big Bang from "Planck epoch", and you claim that the early universe was compact, then by definition due to the expansion rate there is a limit for the maximal size of the Universe.
Please look at the following diagram:
https://lco.global/spacebook/cosmology/early-universe/
Let's assume that the maximal size of the universe after the inflation is X.
We know that the expansion rate is based on Hubble constant (about 70 (km/s)/Mpc).
Therefore, after 13.8 BY with that kind of expansion rate - there must be a maximal size for the Universe.
If the real universe is bigger than this maximal estimated size, then there must be an error in the BBT.
If you claim that the BBT didn't start from "Planck epoch", then our puzzled scientists should tell us from which size it had started and how the Bang could start while the Universe is already infinite.
The observable Universe can have a finite size while the Universe as a whole can potentially have (and always have had) an infinite size.
That is fully correct.
However, I still don't understand how you get infinite Universe without breaking the starting elements of the BBT.
The really tiny black holes won't be around today, because they would have evaporated long ago by Hawking radiation.Why do you think that normal BH (with mass bigger 1 M☉) shouldn't evaporate?
In the attached articale they just discuss about BH & micro black holes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation"
"The radiation temperature is inversely proportional to the black hole's mass, so micro black holes are predicted to be larger emitters of radiation than larger black holes and should dissipate faster."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
Micro black holes, also called mini black holes or quantum mechanical black holes, are hypothetical tiny (<1 M☉) black holes,
So, the main idea is that any BH should eventually evaporate, however - a tinny BH with (<1 M☉) should evaporate faster.
Therefore, if that theory is correct, then theoretically, all the BH/SMBH in the universe should be evaporate eventually.
Please be aware that we observe millions of BH/SMBH.
We also clearly observe our MY SMBH.
So far we didn't observe any star that falls in while we see them all ejecting matter from their accretion disc.
We just hope that this matter in the accretion disc is due to stars that fall inwards long time ago.
However, statistically, if that is correct and as we observe millions of BH/SMBH how could it be that we didn't see any sort of fireworks as the star falls in - in any one of those millions over millions SMBH?
Please see the following image of Saggitarius_A:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope#/media/File:EHT_Saggitarius_A_black_hole.tif
This is the first image of Sgr A* extracted from its 2017 observations.
I do recall that few years earlier (2011 or 2012) the mass in the accretion disc was significantly lower.
As we have never observed any falling star into Saggitarius_A, how could it be that the mass in the accretion disc had been increased so dramatically in those few years?
How can you highlight the Hawking radiation while you refuse to accept Hawking message that the mass in accretion disc could come due to Hawking radiation?
Look on all the current observations (and especially on the observation that we didn't see)
We don't see (and would never see) any first generation star.
Please be aware that we observe most-distant-galaxy galaxies with million or billion stars without even one single first generation star.
The estimated age of this galaxy is just 600My.
So, based on the BBT, the first star from the first generation star could only be formed 400 My after the bang. However, we wish to believe that less than 200 M years latter all the first generation had been gone.
Is it real? How can we accept this imagination?
Let's go back to our dear Quasar. It is stated:
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole
"In fact, scientists estimate that, on average, this particular quasar's black hole ingests an amount of mass equivalent to 25 suns every year."
Hence, on average, this particular quasar's black hole ingests an amount of mass equivalent to one sun every two weeks.
We have supper advanced technology.
We can detect stars at the most-distant-galaxy (at a similar distance as this quasar) and even verify their structure.
So, how could it be that after observing that quasar for quite long time, we didn't observe even one tinny star as it falls inwards with amazing fireworks?
As we don't see even one star in the entire universe as it falls inwards (with fireworks) into just one of the Millions of BH/SMBH that we clearly observe, why can't we just assume that the matter in the accretion disc is due to Hawking radiation?
However, in this case, we need to explain how could it me that this quasar is so massive (1.6 B solar mass).
How long we will continue to claim that stars falls in but unfortunately we are just not so lucky enough to see even one falling star (with fireworks)?
If the idea of stars that falls inwards the SMBH was real - don't you agree that we have to observe every day at least one falling star somewhere in the entire Universe?
https://lco.global/spacebook/cosmology/early-universe/
In the following diagram we clearly see that the first star had been formed 400MY after the Bang.
So, I really can't understand why our puzzled scientists claim that the massive SMBH seed could be formed just 100MY after the bang and how it gets its 1.6B Solar mass just 570 MY after the bang while we don't see any star as it falls inwards into that quasar.
Why shouldn't I lock this topic?You don't have to lock it.
Just tell me to stop the discussion in this topic - and I would stop.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2022 15:45:48
Just tell me to stop the discussion in this topic - and I would stop.I'd like you to actually start a discussion.
A discussion is where you actually answer the points out to you>
Ones like this
Why shouldn't I lock this topic?Perhaps he should get a chance to explain why he thinks that because we don't know the size and shape of the universe, we can't use this maths"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .which doesn't mention the size and shape of the universe.
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
I have to say I'm really quite curious about that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2022 15:46:53
Why do you think that normal BH (with mass bigger 1 M☉) shouldn't evaporate?We don't think that.
Try not making up silly ideas and ascribing them to us.
Post by: Halc on 16/05/2022 16:42:44
Based on the BBT the Universe started from "Planck epoch".This contradicts the quote you gave which says the Planck epoch is "immediately following the initial singularity". So saying it started with the singularity would be closer. But also, time isn't meaningful until the Planck epoch, so in that way you could admittedly argue that it is the 'start' of the universe.
Quote
It doesn't say that. It says the visible universe is that size, not the entire singularity, which, being singular, has no meaningful size/temperature/density/energy/whatever. So what was to become our visible universe was contained in this space under a billionth the size of a particle (which also suggests that a unspecified particle has a size, suggesting a non-fundamental construct of multiple things). Hey, it's wiki, hardly an authoritative source of what represents the current details of the theory.Quote from: wiki"All matter and energy of the entire visible universe is contained in a hot, dense point (gravitational singularity), a billionth the size of a nuclear particle."So, how that "gravitational singularity, a billionth the size of a nuclear particle" could suddenly be considered as Infinite space without breaking the BBT theory?
Quote
Therefore, if the Universe started off with an infinite sizeIt started with the singularity, which means it's singular: It has no meaningful size and other things, which is what they mean by time and space having no meaning. Don't confuse a singularity with a point. The latter has a size. The former is just where physics (certainly classic physics at least, which seems to be the level at which your nonsense is staged) cannot describe the situation.
Quote
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity")."There you go, giving meaning where it says time and space have no meaning. So no, the universe has no meaningful dimensions at the singularity, but it begins to at the Planck epoch.
If you start the Bang when the Universe is already infinite
Quote
So, how can we claim about concentrated cosmos while this cosmos is already infinite?Learn some grade school mathematics. Concentration (or density actually since concentration seems more of a chemical term) is not measured in meters but rather units of stuff/volume which can be the same for different volumes. Hence knowledge of the size isn't necessary if the density has been measured. For instance, rock (the heavy stuff like you get at say the bottom of the Atlantic) is about 6 times the density of water. Knowledge of the size of the specific rock isn't necessary for that to be known.
Quote
If you start the Big Bang from "Planck epoch", and you claim that the early universe was compact, then by definition due to the expansion rate there is a limit for the maximal size of the Universe.Non-sequitur. By definition of what? Compact? The word as used here just means relativity dense, and as pointed out just above, knowing the density of a thing gives you no clue as to the size of it.
Quote
Let's assume that the maximal size of the universe after the inflation is X.This assumes that it has a finite size, which seems to contradict your typical assertions. The visible universe was perhaps the size of a grapefruit immediately after inflation. Estimates vary considerably.
Quote
We know that the expansion rate is based on Hubble constant (about 70 (km/s)/Mpc).No, the Hubble constant is based on the current measured expansion rate. It isn't a constant, and it only tells you approximately how old the universe is since it is in units of t-1.
Quote
Therefore, after 13.8 BY with that kind of expansion rate - there must be a maximal size for the Universe.This absurdly suggests that expansion must stop now since the universe cannot expand further. Do you read your own comments? There is no maximal size, even for a finite size thing, if it continues to expand forever. The visible universe for instance has grown to about 96 BLY across (proper distance along a line of constant cosmological time) and there is no size of it that will not eventually be reached.
Quote
If the real universe is bigger than this maximal estimated size, then there must be an error in the BBT.Or an error in you postulating this maximal size limit. Hmm, which is it you think?
Quote
If you claim that the BBT didn't start from "Planck epoch"The BBT is a theory that started only about a century ago. Perhaps you mean the universe that started from the Planck epoch.
Quote
then our puzzled scientistsI'm not locking the topic, but do stop saying that. It is you that is puzzled, apparently by choce. The people whom you are slandering are far more knowledgeable about the theory than any of us and none of them see problems in the places that you do because that's not where the problems are.
Quote
So, how could it be that after observing that quasar for quite long time, we didn't observe even one tinny star as it falls inwards with amazing fireworks?A quasar is about as fireworks as you can get. They consume stellar masses at an insane rate.
Your comments of black holes is very much along the lines of your prior topics, about which you agreed to desist discussion.
Quote
Just tell me to stop the discussion in this topic - and I would stop.But you don't. You're going on again claiming nothing falling into black holes, even the ones that are visibly doing so at the highest rates. So you don't keep your promises to stop.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2022 20:13:32
You're going on again claiming nothing falling into black holes, even the ones that are visibly doing so at the highest ratesDear Halc
With your permission...
What do you mean by: "even the ones that are visibly doing so at the highest rates"?
Do you mean that we have many observations for falling stars into SMBHs?
In the following article dated May 12, 2022 it is stated:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/variable-emission-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole
"One of the biggest ongoing questions surrounding black holes is exactly how they collect, ingest, or even expel material orbiting them at near light speed, in a process known as “accretion.” This process is fundamental to the formation and growth of planets, stars, and black holes of all sizes, throughout the universe"
It is stated clearly: "One of the biggest ongoing questions surrounding black holes is exactly how they collect, ingest, or even expel material orbiting them".
So, even up to few days ago, our scientists don't really know how the SMBH is exactly collecting material/stars orbiting around them.
However, it is also stated:
"“Astronomers can largely agree on the basics – that black holes have material swirling around them and some of it falls across the event horizon forever,” said Sera Markoff of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands,"
So, do you agree that our scientists agree among themselves that some of the material around the SMBH should fall in, however so far they didn't find any real observation to that?
If you think that we have a clear observation for star as it falls into the SMBH and sets severe flare/fireworks during this process - then please offer that observation.
In any case, if you wish to stop the discussion on the idea of falling stars - then we won't discuss about it.
Please let me know if there is any subject in this topic that we shouldn't discuss.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2022 21:41:26
So, how that "gravitational singularity, a billionth the size of a nuclear particle" could suddenly be considered as Infinite space without breaking the BBT theory?
We also know that there is no empty space with no energy. Therefore, if the Universe started off with an infinite size then by definition it should have some sort of energy.
That does seem counter-intuitive at first, but a singularity of zero size would have made reference to our observable Universe, not the Universe as a whole. To help you understand, consider looking at it backwards through time. You start off with a universe of infinite size, with roughly the same (low) density everywhere. Our observable Universe is a sphere of limited size within this larger Universe. As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable Universe gets smaller. However, the Universe as a whole is still remains infinitely large because no degree of shrinkage can change that. So as you go further and further back in time, our observable Universe continues to shrink until it shrinks to zero (or close to zero) size at the moment of the Big Bang. The total Universe is still infinitely-large at this point, however. It's just that the density everywhere is infinite (or at least very, very high).
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2022 04:54:08
Thanks for the explanation.
However, there is a small problem in this explanation - as follow:
To help you understand, consider looking at it backwards through time. You start off with a universe of infinite size, with roughly the same (low) density everywhere.Correct.
Our observable Universe is a sphere of limited size within this larger UniverseStill correct.
As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable Universe gets smaller.That is incorrect as the density of matter in our real infinite universe is fixed over time.
However, for our discussion let's assume that your explanation is correct.
However, the Universe as a whole is still remains infinitely large because no degree of shrinkage can change that. So as you go further and further back in time, our observable Universe continues to shrink until it shrinks to zero (or close to zero) size at the moment of the Big Bang.This could be correct ONLY if you shrink the observable Universe while there is no change in all infinite universe outside that observable universe.
So, how we prove that only the Observable Universe shrinks?
I hope that you agree that the name "observable Universe" is something that we have decided.
Our real universe is significantly bigger. It might be infinite.
Let's agree that there is a Universe that is called Universe M and its radius is 1 Million Times the radius of the Observable Universe. (one million times the 48B LY of the observable Radius).
Now do you think that as we go further and further back in time, the Universe M could shrink to zero (or close to zero) in just 13.8 BY?
The total Universe is still infinitely-large at this point, however. It's just that the density everywhere is infinite (or at least very, very high)If you can prove that only the Observable Universe shrinks while all the other Universe stay as is then your explanation could be correct.
If not, then as the total Universe is infinitely-large at this point, it would still be infinite even if we shrink it by go back 13.8BY in time.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2022 22:05:01
That is incorrect as the density of matter in our real infinite universe is fixed over time.
Not according to the Big Bang theory, it isn't.
This could be correct ONLY if you shrink the observable Universe while there is no change in all infinite universe outside that observable universe.
Not so. All areas of the Universe would shrink more or less equally.
So, how we prove that only the Observable Universe shrinks?
There's no need to.
Now do you think that as we go further and further back in time, the Universe M could shrink to zero (or close to zero) in just 13.8 BY?
Possibly. It depends on the maximum possible density (whether or not that density is infinite). Universe M would have been an awful lot smaller at the Big Bang either way.
If not, then as the total Universe is infinitely-large at this point, it would still be infinite even if we shrink it by go back 13.8BY in time.
That was my entire point. It demonstrates how the Universe as a whole can be infinitely large at the moment of the Big Bang even though our observable Universe was still incredibly tiny.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2022 08:59:50
Just tell me to stop the discussion in this topic - and I would stop.I'd like you to actually start a discussion.
A discussion is where you actually answer the points out to you>
Ones like thisWhy shouldn't I lock this topic?Perhaps he should get a chance to explain why he thinks that because we don't know the size and shape of the universe, we can't use this maths"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .which doesn't mention the size and shape of the universe.
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
I have to say I'm really quite curious about that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2022 17:43:02
The visible universe was perhaps the size of a grapefruit immediately after inflation. Estimates vary considerably.Hence, based on the BBT - After the inflation it might be in the size of grapefruit.
That was my entire point. It demonstrates how the Universe as a whole can be infinitely large at the moment of the Big Bang even though our observable Universe was still incredibly tiny.However, now we understand that for infinite universe it must be infinitely large at the moment of the Big Bang.
Therefore, the Big bang should start while the universe is already infinite.
So how can you claim that a theory for a universe that starts as a grapefruit size after the bang and the inflation, could perfectly work while at the big bang moment it is already infinite?
We can claim that the Hubble constant isn't constant at all:
Hence, the value of 70 (km/s)/Mpc is just based on the current measured expansion rate.QuoteQuoteNo, the Hubble constant is based on the current measured expansion rate. It isn't a constant, and it only tells you approximately how old the universe is since it is in units of t-1.
We know that the expansion rate is based on Hubble constant (about 70 (km/s)/Mpc).
So, we can estimate that in the early time it was much bigger.
But how big it could be?
It is very clear that any finite value of that Hubble constant at any given finite time frame (13.8 By or more) can't form an infinite Universe.
I assume that only if we set the Hubble constant as infinite value there is a possibility to get infinite Universe in a finite time.
Therefore, as long as the Hubble constant has a finite value the Big Bang can't create an infinite Universe.
However, if we set ultra high value for the Hubble constant, then the chance to get a massive SMBH seed is zero.
So, there is no way for us to get that 1.6B solar mass in just 670 M years after the bang.
Hence, you have a severe problem in the theory:
1. If the Hubble constant is too low, that grapefruit could end as a SS..SMBH without any Universe
2. If the Hubble constant is not too low or too high you end with a finite universe
3. If the Hubble constant is too high (or infinite), you might get the infinite Universe but not the quasar.
As the Hubble constant isn't constant at all, then this formula which is based only on the current value is just not realistic.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 14:59:48which doesn't mention the size and shape of the universe.
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
Therefore, even without knowing the size and shape of the universe we clearly know that you can't just use the current Hubble constant in that formula.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/05/2022 20:54:02
So how can you claim that a theory for a universe that starts as a grapefruit size after the bang and the inflation, could perfectly work while at the big bang moment it is already infinite?
Because the "grapefruit size" thing only applied to the observable Universe, not the entire Universe. Let's not get those two things confused.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2022 21:02:29
I assume that only if we set the Hubble constant as infinite value there is a possibility to get infinite Universe in a finite time.You don't "set" it, you measure it.
Making up numbers- particularly infinite ones- is not science.
Also, if you set the Hubble constant to be infinite, the earth would explode infinitely fast.
So we know that idea is wrong- even if it wasn't anti-science.
Setting that aside, you still haven't answered my point
It's as if you miss the point deliberately.
If the age of the universe is (about) 1/ H then obviously H changes- because the age of the universe changes.
It's as stupid as saying you can't count the rings in a tree to determine the age- because the number of rings changes. It will only tell you the current age of the tree.
Well. yes, of course it will.
But the current age is exactly the thing we want to determine.
And that's all beside the point.
The size and shape of the universe do not occur in this equation.
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
So any change to the size and shape of the universe would not affect that equation.
So we do not need to know what the size and shape of the universe are, in order to calculate that equation.
So why do you say we can't?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2022 17:35:46
You don't "set" it, you measure it.Yes, we can measure the Hubble constant.
and it is constant everywhere.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Hubble-diagram-or-the-velocity-distance-relation-plot-for-type-Ia-supernovae_fig1_331983227
The Hubble diagram or the velocity-distance relation plot for type Ia supernovae
The velocity-distance relation plots for freely expanding gas molecules (Figure 2 to Figure 6) are exactly like the velocity-distance relation plot for the receding large-scale structures according to the Hubble diagram; the molecules receding slowly are closer to us whereas the molecules receding faster are further away from us.
Hence, at any distance and at any direction from us the Hubble constant is always 70 (km/s)/Mpc.
However, our universe must be symmetrical.
Therefore, the value of Hubble constant should exists at any location in the entire infinite universe.
Hence, if we could jump to a point that is located at 10BLY from us we would find that any galaxy that is located in the visible universe of that point has exactly the same Hubble constant.
That is also correct to a point that is located at 100BLY away, 1 Trillion years away and even in the infinity LY away.
Making up numbers- particularly infinite ones- is not science.I hope that you don't have intention for making up numbers by claiming that suddenly after our observable universe radius, that Hubble constant value is different.
The size and shape of the universe do not occur in this equation.You are absolutely correct!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:43:02
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
So any change to the size and shape of the universe would not affect that equation.
So we do not need to know what the size and shape of the universe are, in order to calculate that equation.
As the Hubble constant is constant at any location in the entire infinite Universe.
Therefore, let's read again the message from Kryptid:
As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable Universe gets smaller.Sorry, that message is correct not just for our observable Universe but for the entire infinite Universe as the Hubble constant should be equal everywhere in the entire universe.
Hence, As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents
Therefore, as 1/H0 is the calculated age of the Universe, then the age of the entire infinite Universe is 13.8 BY.
Hence, 13.8 BY ago, just after the Big Bang and the inflation the size of the entire infinite Universe was at the size of "grapefruit".
Therefore, as long as we all agree that the Hubble constant is equal everywhere - the Big bang should create our current infinite universe from a single bang.
There is no other option!
The only question is: Do you accept that option as a realistic option for the BBT?
Is it possible for the Big Bang to form Infinite Universe in a single bang that took place 13.8 By ago?
Please remember the following message:
Making up numbers- particularly infinite ones- is not science.So please don't make up numbers- particularly not Hubble constant at the infinity just to fit it into the BBT theory.
Why is it so difficult for all of you to look for better explanation that can explain how the Hubble constant could be equal everywhere in the entire infinite universe without breaking any science law?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2022 18:33:02
You are still trying to say that we can't use this
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .because we don't know the size of the universe.
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
Lets try a few different sizes for the universe and see what difference it makes.
The Universe is small enough to fit in my pocket say 0.01 metres
1/H0 is about 14 billion years.
Now let's say the universe is a trillion light years across
1/H0 is still about 14 billion years.
Did you notice that 1/ H0 does not actually change?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2022 18:37:38
So please don't make up numbers- particularly not Hubble constantI didn't make it up- I copied the value that was measured by actual scientists.
just to fit it into the BBT theory.Technically, there's quite a big range of values that would more or less work.
You are the one cherry picking a value to make it look like your idea works.
You chose one of the values it can't have- infinity.
If the speed of expansion was infinity times the distance away then my monitor which is about a metre away would be receding at a rate of 1 times infinity ie infinity metres per second.
Well that's plainly wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2022 19:02:17
OK, lest stop being silly.
You are still trying to say that we can't use this"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .because we don't know the size of the universe.
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So, t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."
Lets try a few different sizes for the universe and see what difference it makes.
The Universe is small enough to fit in my pocket say 0.01 metres
1/H0 is about 14 billion years.
Now let's say the universe is a trillion light years across
1/H0 is still about 14 billion years.
Did you notice that 1/ H0 does not actually change?
I say again that you are fully correct.
1/H0 is about 14 billion years.Fully agree!
Now let's say the universe is a trillion light years across
1/H0 is still about 14 billion years.
Even if the size of the Universe is Billion over trillion LY across or infinite, 1/H0 is still about 14 billion years.
So please explain how a single bang that took place 13.8BY ago could set a trillion light years or infinite Universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2022 19:10:58
Please elaborateQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:35:46Technically, there's quite a big range of values that would more or less work.
just to fit it into the BBT theory.
If the speed of expansion was infinity times the distance away then my monitor which is about a metre away would be receding at a rate of 1 times infinity ie infinity metres per second.Do you claim that the BBT cant form an infinite Universe?
Well that's plainly wrong.
You chose one of the values it can't have- infinity.So what is the real size of the entire Universe?
Prove it please.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2022 19:12:29
So what is the real size of the entire Universe?Why did you put the word "so" in there?
Post by: Halc on 19/05/2022 23:38:38
Yes, we can measure the Hubble constant.It is not constant anywhere. It is approximately 1/t where t is cosmological time, and being a function of time, it is continuously changing, not a constant at all.
and it is constant everywhere.
Quote
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Hubble-diagram-or-the-velocity-distance-relation-plot-for-type-Ia-supernovae_fig1_331983227They don't say how they measure distance in that graph. There are many ways to do so, and they're approximately the same only for nearby objects. That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much. But we see galaxies much further away than that, and distances become meaningless without specification of coordinate system used. My example object is GN-z11, a very distant galaxy. Some typical choices:
The Hubble diagram or the velocity-distance relation plot for type Ia supernovae
1) Inertial coordinates: Only in inertial coordinates is light speed a constant c, and the coordinate system only applies to space that is more or less Minkowskian (flat), which is not true at large scales. In such coordinates, light can get from anywhere to anywhere else given enough time. There are no event horizons. The Milne solution uses such coordinates. Using such coordinates, the current size of the entire universe (relative to the inertial frame of Earth) is a sphere of radius about 13.8 BLY. Distances are measured along lines of simultaneity in the chosen frame. GN-z11 is about 13.5 BLY away, and the light we see now was emitted 6.7 BY ago.
2) Proper distance, comoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.
GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.
3) Comoving distance/coordinates: In these coordinates, light speed is a function of time (c/scalefactor). Most objects (galaxies) are reasonably stationary and their distance is fixed since the big bang. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at the current time) traced on a line of 13.8 BY cosmological age.
GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from a comoving distance of about 31 BLY. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to dark energy slowing light speed to the extent that it can never reach us.
4) There is also the dubious light-travel distance, which isn't a valid coordinate system at all, but declares the distance to objects to be c/t from emission event. Light from GN-z11 was emitted from about 13.2 BLY away as measured by light travel time.
Quote
The velocity-distance relation plots for freely expanding gas molecules (Figure 2 to Figure 6) are exactly like the velocity-distance relation plot for the receding large-scale structures according to the Hubble diagram; the molecules receding slowly are closer to us whereas the molecules receding faster are further away from us.That's nice, but the model is Newtonian and doesn't work at all at scales approaching visible universe distances, let alone distances beyond that.
Quote
Hence, at any distance and at any direction from us the Hubble constant is always 70 (km/s)/Mpc.No. Only at events at similar cosmological time to us, which reduces the applicability of the value to coordinate systems 2 and 3 above.
Quote
Therefore, the value of Hubble constant should exists at any location in the entire infinite universe.Again, no. Only to events at similar cosmological time to us.
Quote
Hence, if we could jump to a point that is located at 10BLY from usAmbiguous statement without coordinate system. Using for instance inertial coordinates, jumping to a point located 10 BLY away gets you to a galaxy where the Hubble constant is currently measured at perhaps 100 km/sec/mpc, not 70. This is why choice of coordinate system matters.
Quote
we would find that any galaxy that is located in the visible universe of that point has exactly the same Hubble constant.If you used comoving coordinate system, then you can choose a galaxy a trillion LY away and H0 will currently be measured at 70 there, just like here. There are no galaxies that far away in the inertial coordinates, not in our frame anyway. In a different inertial frame, yes, you can get galaxies at any distance you want, but H0 will not currently be 70 there.
Quote
1 Trillion years away and even in the infinity LY awayInfinity is not a distance or a size or a number. Much of your nonsense assertions stem from using it like it was a number. BC has pointed this out. Yes, you can talk about a galaxy a trillion LY away, at least if you use an appropriate frame.
Quote
Therefore, as 1/H0 is the calculated age of the Universe, then the age of the entire infinite Universe is 13.8 BY.So very wrong. Nobody said that. You keep (seemingly deliberately) dropping the adjective 'visible' from 'universe'. I have a hard time believing anybody is this stupid, so it just means you're trolling when you make nonsense statements like that.
Hence, 13.8 BY ago, just after the Big Bang and the inflation the size of the entire infinite Universe was at the size of "grapefruit".
The visible universe was about the size of a grapefruit shortly after inflation. It was much smaller before inflation, but the Hubble 'constant' is entirely inapplicable until after inflation. The universe expanded at an exponential rate during inflation, but only at an approximately linear rate thereafter.
Quote
Therefore, as long as we all agree that the Hubble constant is equal everywhere - the Big bang should create our current infinite universe from a single bang.There are other options, which is why these things are 'unknown', and essentially do not matter.
There is no other option!
Quote
Is it possible for the Big Bang to form Infinite Universe in a single bang that took place 13.8 By ago?You just said that was the only option, and now you're asking if it's even possible. Go figure...
Post by: Kryptid on 20/05/2022 00:39:46
Hence, As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable the entire infinite Universe gets smaller.
An infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 05:37:51
It is not constant anywhere. It is approximately 1/t where t is cosmological time, and being a function of time, it is continuously changing, not a constant at all.Yes, it is changing over time, but today it is constant everywhere.
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/02/sorry-astronomy-fans-the-hubble-constant-isnt-a-constant-at-all/?sh=555468819d59
"the "Hubble constant" itself is a misnomer. It has a value today that's the same everywhere in the Universe"
So what is the meaning of everywhere?
That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much.Why do you limit the "everywhere" to only 2 BLY?
Don't you agree that everywhere means - the entire universe even if it is in the size of one trillion LY or just infinite?
Therefore, do you confirm that the current Hubble constant everywhere in the entire universe should be 70?
If you still think that the above statement is incorrect - then would you kindly prove it by other article?
The visible universe was about the size of a grapefruit shortly after inflation. It was much smaller before inflation, but the Hubble 'constant' is entirely inapplicable until after inflation. The universe expanded at an exponential rate during inflation, but only at an approximately linear rate thereafter.That explanation from the BBT is very clear.
However, I still don't understand why do you insist that only the visible / observable universe was in the size of the grapefruit shortly after inflation?
Do you finelly confirm that as of today the Hubble constant is constant everywhere in the entire universe (even if it is infinite)?
Based on the BBT calculation for Hubble constant there is no limit in the size of the Universe.
So, why do you insist that only the observable universe can fit into that grapefruit size?
Why not "everywhere"?
An infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate.Yes, I fully agree with this understanding.
However, don't you agree that it proves that there is a severe contradiction between the BBT calculations from that Hubble constant to our understanding?
Therefore, why can't we look for better option for our understanding?
There are other options, which is why these things are 'unknown', and essentially do not matter.Could it be that you say this message as you do understand that there is a contradiction?
If thinks are unknown, then could it be that the current theory isn't fully correct or just incorrect?
Why do you refuse to consider other options?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/05/2022 05:48:27
However, it proves that there is a severe contradiction between the BBT calculations from that Hubble constant to our understanding.
No, it doesn't and I don't understand why you think it does.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 06:07:46
However, it proves that there is a severe contradiction between the BBT calculations from that Hubble constant to our understanding.
No, it doesn't and I don't understand why you think it does.
You have stated that:
An infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rateI assume that you mean that an infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate at a given time.
However could it be that infinitely-large Universe can become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate in infinite time?
So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time
"The current physical cosmology estimates the present age as 13.8 billion years"
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/05/2022 06:52:02
However could it be that infinitely-large Universe can become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate in infinite time?
No, because such an infinitely-large Universe doesn't have some kind of boundary that can get smaller in the first place.
So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?
What do you mean by "releasing" cosmic time?
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
You can, but so far the Big Bang theory is still the best candidate for explaining the observations.
Post by: Halc on 20/05/2022 13:30:16
I know that Dave will continue to post things that conveys a lack of reading comprehension of this information.How true this prediction already turned out to be.
Yes, it is changing over time, but today it is constant everywhere.If you had actually comprehended my prior post, it say that which events constitute 'today' is frame dependent, and relative to Earth's inertial frame (the frame which you seem to imply), it is very much a different value at distant places 'today'.
Quote
"the "Hubble constant" itself is a misnomer. It has a value today that's the same everywhere in the Universe"If you had actually comprehended my prior posts, this question has already been answered. It is literally every location in space, no matter how distant.
So what is the meaning of everywhere?
Quote
If you had actually comprehended my prior post, you'd realize that I did not mention 'everywhere' in that sentence. It was a comment about the graph you linked, not about 'everywhere'.Quote from: HalcThat graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much.Why do you limit the "everywhere" to only 2 BLY?
Quote
do you confirm that the current Hubble constant everywhere in the entire universe should be 70?The universe consists of more than today, but H would be measured at 70 by comoving observers at events where the age of the universe and gravitational potential are both reasonably the same as here. This would not be true of distant events 'today' relative to Earth's inertial frame since such events do not meet the criteria above.
Quote
However, I still don't understand why do you insist that only the visible / observable universe was in the size of the grapefruit shortly after inflation?I don't insist on it. I said estimates vary, but that's the approximate size that best explains empirical observations.
Quote
Based on the BBT calculation for Hubble constant there is no limit in the size of the Universe.No, not based on that at all. The Hubble constant is not a function of the size of anything. If you had actually comprehended repeated prior posts by myself an others, you'd stop asking this.
Quote
So, why do you insist that only the observable universe can fit into that grapefruit size?It fit into a lot smaller space than that. That's simply how very much it had grown by the end of inflation epoch.
Quote
Could it be that you say this message as you do understand that there is a contradiction?Not if none has been identified. I only see you contradicting your own assertions, but not that of the BBT. It's like insisting that 2+2=4 is contradictory because you don't know the largest integer.
I assume that you mean that an infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate at a given time.Depends on what you mean by 'smaller'. If you shrink the universe by half, then the density octuples, so it has by that measure an eighth the volume for any given set of matter. But an infinite universe has by definition no meaningful size. There is no number that represents its size or volume, and thus no different number representing the size after the shrinking. This is what Kryptid means by 'cannot become smaller'. There is no size number to change.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42
They don't say how they measure distance in that graph. There are many ways to do so, and they're approximately the same only for nearby objects. That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much. But we see galaxies much further away than that, and distances become meaningless without specification of coordinate system used. My example object is GN-z11, a very distant galaxy. Some typical choices:Dear Halc
1) Inertial coordinates: Only in inertial coordinates is light speed a constant c, and the coordinate system only applies to space that is more or less Minkowskian (flat), which is not true at large scales. In such coordinates, light can get from anywhere to anywhere else given enough time. There are no event horizons. The Milne solution uses such coordinates. Using such coordinates, the current size of the entire universe (relative to the inertial frame of Earth) is a sphere of radius about 13.8 BLY. Distances are measured along lines of simultaneity in the chosen frame. GN-z11 is about 13.5 BLY away, and the light we see now was emitted 6.7 BY ago.
2) Proper distance, comoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.
GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.
3) Comoving distance/coordinates: In these coordinates, light speed is a function of time (c/scalefactor). Most objects (galaxies) are reasonably stationary and their distance is fixed since the big bang. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at the current time) traced on a line of 13.8 BY cosmological age.
GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from a comoving distance of about 31 BLY. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to dark energy slowing light speed to the extent that it can never reach us.
4) There is also the dubious light-travel distance, which isn't a valid coordinate system at all, but declares the distance to objects to be c/t from emission event. Light from GN-z11 was emitted from about 13.2 BLY away as measured by light travel time.
Thanks for your deep explanation about:
1. Inertial coordinates
2. Proper distance, comoving coordinates
3. Comoving distance/coordinates
4. the dubious light-travel distance.
I have already read it and I do appreciate your explanation.
The Proper distance, comoving coordinates & Comoving distance/coordinates are key elements in the BBT theory.
However, I hope that you confirm that we do not monitor or measure the coordinates in space as we can't technically monitor the space itself.
We can just monitor the ordinary matter in space - as that very distant galaxy (like GN-z11) in your example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11
1. Redshift 11.09
2. Helio radial velocity = 295,050 ± 119,917 km/s (which is almost the speed of light).
3. Distance ≈ 32 billion ly (9.8 billion pc) (present proper distance) ≈13.4 billion ly (4.1 billion pc) (light-travel distance)
Do you agree that the understanding about the light-travel distance is fully based on the BBT concept that the space itself is expanding?
However, as we can only measure the galaxies and not the space itself, did you ever consider a possibility that there is no expansion in space and we just observe the expansion of the galaxy in a fixed space?
In this example we clearly measure a distance of 32 billion ly. (we call it - present proper distance)
However, that measurement breaks the fundamental understanding of the BBT that the age of the universe is just 13.8BY.
Therefore, it is vital to "normalize" that measured distance to the total age of the Universe as stated by the BBT.
In order to do so, it is stated that the light travel distance is 13.4 billion ly while we measured that the present proper distance (real distance?) is 32 billion ly.
Hence, could it be that the idea about proper/comoving close the gap between the real measurements to the requested parameters of the BBT?
So why do you kill any other candidate that could offer better explaining for the observations?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:07:46You can, but so far the Big Bang theory is still the best candidate for explaining the observations.
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
Why you are flexible for all the BBT problems, but show almost zero flexibility to the others?
Do you agree that if one day we would discover that the real age of the Universe is 100Bly instead of just 13.8 BY, then technically we could fully accept the idea that the real the measurements of 32 BLY fully represents the light-travel distance to that galaxy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_timeQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:07:46What do you mean by "releasing" cosmic time?
So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?
"Cosmic time, or cosmological time, is the time coordinate commonly used in the Big Bang models of physical cosmology.
Such time coordinate may be defined for a homogeneous, expanding universe so that the universe has the same density everywhere at each moment in time"
"The current physical cosmology estimates the present age as 13.8 billion years."
As the BBT can only explain the observable universe size, while we do understand that the real universe should be significantly bigger than the observable universe - why can't we look again on the measurements without the BBT filtering?
Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe? So would you consider a possibility that the BBT took place much longer time ago?
What about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?
If you shrink the universe by half, then the density octuples, so it has by that measure an eighth the volume for any given set of matter.Would you kindly accept (for just one moment) the idea that the expansion is just in the galaxies while the space itself is fixed and there is no shrink in the universe space?
Post by: Halc on 20/05/2022 20:46:11
The Proper distance, comoving coordinates & Comoving distance/coordinates are key elements in the BBT theory.Coordinate systems (CS) are abstract tools, hardly key elements since any physical system can be expressed to a point using any coordinate system you want. But if you say some object is 10 BLY away, that's a fairly meaningless statement without identification of the coordinate system used to express that distance.
Quote
GN-z11A CS independent empirical measurement.
1. Redshift 11.09
Quote
2. Helio radial velocity = 295,050 ± 119,917 km/s (which is almost the speed of light).The 295050 seems to be the inertial velocity that would yield that redshift. The ±119917 is baffling in that context. That's 40% in either direction, which seems to make no sense. Typo in wiki?
Quote
3. Distance ≈ 32 billion ly (9.8 billion pc) (present proper distance)Now they switch to CS 2 or 3. If it is 10000 mpc away, per Hubble's law it should be receding at 700,000 km/sec which is about 2.3c, hardly the speed reported just above. But that speed was reported using CS 1, not CS 2. All very inconsistent of the wiki writers. Yes, in cosmological coordinates, it is receding at over 2c and is about 32 GLY away. It, like everything else, is currently accelerating, which is not true using CS 1 (inertial) where GN-z11 is currently still decelerating.
Quote
≈13.4 billion ly (4.1 billion pc) (light-travel distance)Method 4, which is not a CS at all.
Quote
Do you agree that the understanding about the light-travel distance is fully based on the BBT concept that the space itself is expanding?Light travel distance is based on pop articles aimed at people who don't understand the mathematics. No, it doesn't leverage the concept of space expansion at all. No clock would measure that time. No tape measure would measure that distance. I mean, if it traveled over 13 BLY to get here, it must have been emitted from 13.4 BLY away, and got there in only 400 MY, which is over 33c. Are they suggesting GN-z11 was initially moving at over 33c? And redshift of only 11?? Method 4 values are self contradictory, and as I said, only used in pop articles.
Quote
However, as we can only measure the galaxies and not the space itself ...Ooh, you just said we don't measure space, but then assert that we clearly measured the space of 32 BLY. Contradicting yourself I see. Stop asserting things that are 'clearly' when you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every time you use the word 'clearly', you're asserting something you know to be wrong.
In this example we clearly measure a distance of 32 billion ly. (we call it - present proper distance)
When you use the word 'vital', it means you know you're talking about something that doesn't matter.
Quote
However, that measurement breaks the fundamental understanding of the BBT that the age of the universe is just 13.8BY.There was no mention of age in that distance measurement, so another nonsense assertion.
Quote
Therefore, it is vital to "normalize" that measured distance to the total age of the Universe as stated by the BBT. In order to do so, it is stated that the light travel distance is 13.4 billion ly while we measured that the present proper distance (real distance?) is 32 billion ly.13.4 is nonsense. 32 is relative to cosmological coordinates. Distances are CS dependent, so none of them is more real than any other (except for that light-travel one which is definitely less real).
Quote
Hence, could it be that the idea about proper/comoving close the gap between the real measurements to the requested parameters of the BBT?That's a word salad. No idea what 'parameters' you're referencing here. I don't think you know either.
Quote
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?Yea. You get redshift of 11 and not much more. Certainly no parallax. You need a model to get a distance from that.
Quote
So why do you kill any other candidate that could offer better explaining for the observations?We don't, but no candidate does better, and there have been a lot of them. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to see that the motion of everything we see puts it all right here about 14 BY ago, not earlier or later, but all at once.
Quote
Do you agree that if one day we would discover that the real age of the Universe is 100Bly instead of just 13.8 BYBut using CS 1 (but a different inertial frame than that of Earth), it IS 100 BY old (BLY is a distance, not an age).So you can make it any age you want with correct choice of frame/observer.
Quote
So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?You didn't explain what you meant by 'release', but in CS 2 and 3 (cosmological coordinates), time is measured by what is occasionally called 'cosmic time'. It's the time since all the stuff was right here.
Quote
What about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?B_S suggests explosions of new material periodically occurring at random locations in existing space which would just form a black hole and not result in any matter at all. If anyone was actually capable of producing a new viable theory, they'd not be wasting their time posting it on a forum.
Would you kindly accept (for just one moment) the idea that the expansion is just in the galaxies while the space itself is fixed and there is no shrink in the universe space?The galaxies are not themselves expanding. If they did, the space between them would be shrinking then, not growing. We'd see no redshift if there was no recession.
If you mean static space with galaxies moving through it away from each other, that's the first CS. It is known as the Milne solution to the FLRW equations, and only works with a zero-energy universe. Such a universe would currently be 13.8 BLY in radius, a ball with an abrupt edge, and it would look the same (isotropic) from any view point.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2022 01:12:09
I realise it's a short question, but it's important.So what is the real size of the entire Universe?Why did you put the word "so" in there?
Why did you put that word in your answer?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/05/2022 05:04:36
So why do you kill any other candidate that could offer better explaining for the observations?
We don't yet know of any.
As the BBT can only explain the observable universe size, while we do understand that the real universe should be significantly bigger than the observable universe - why can't we look again on the measurements without the BBT filtering?
There's no reason you can't, but like I said, those very measurements support the BBT.
Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe?
If we find evidence that supports that, yes.
So would you consider a possibility that the BBT took place much longer time ago?
If we find the evidence for that, yes.
What about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?
I don't think there's evidence for it.
Why you are flexible for all the BBT problems, but show almost zero flexibility to the others?
Because the BBT has the best overall explanation so far.
Do you agree that if one day we would discover that the real age of the Universe is 100Bly instead of just 13.8 BY, then technically we could fully accept the idea that the real the measurements of 32 BLY fully represents the light-travel distance to that galaxy?
That would depend on the specifics.
Would you kindly accept (for just one moment) the idea that the expansion is just in the galaxies while the space itself is fixed and there is no shrink in the universe space?
The galaxies themselves don't expand, so that wouldn't make any sense.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2022 17:55:34
This is the most important parameter in our discussion.QuoteQuoteYea. You get redshift of 11 and not much more. Certainly no parallax. You need a model to get a distance from that.
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
Redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity.
Converting from redshift z to velocity v measured in km/sec is easy - the formula is v = c z.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Velocity-redshift.JPG
A variety of possible recessional velocity vs. redshift functions including the simple linear relation v = cz;
We should focus only on linear relation.
Therefore, when we observe a galaxy with redshift of 1 it means that this galaxy is moving away from us at c.
The redshift of galaxy GN-z11 is about 11. Therefore, this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Redshift can't give us any indication about the distance.
In general we can assume that the faster it moves the further it is located.
Hubble verified that there is some sort of correlation between the distance to redshift
However, there might be two galaxies with exactly the same redshift while their distance to us might be totally different.
Hence, redshift is all about velociy and it is a severe mistake to extract the distance from the redshift.
We should ignore the cosmologic redshift and accept the redshift as is.
Velocity and only velocity.
Based on that understanding we can't know the exact distance to that GN-z11 galaxy, however, it is still in a distance that we can observe.
If one day we would improve our tools, we might see other galaxys that are located further away (with higher or lower redshift).
Theoretically, there should be unlimited no of galaxies around us and the further we go it is expected that their redshift would be higher.
The Cosmic Microwave Background is a reflection of radiation from all the galaxies around us.
We had been informed that the CMBR redshift is 1100, but I would expect that there should be wide spectrum of redshift in this CMB as it comes from all the galaxies around us up to the infinity.
We can't extract the distance from that redshift.
Just understand that the meaning of redshift 1100 is that those galaxies are moving away from us at 1100c.
Yes we have the redshift.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42If we find evidence that supports that, yes.
Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe?
That redshift tells us the velocity of each galaxy.
It is not realistic to assume that galaxies that are moving away from us at 1100c (or higher) had been created just 13.8 By ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2022 18:16:42
The Cosmic Microwave Background is a reflection of radiation from all the galaxies around us.No it isn't.
We know that because it has completely the wrong spectrum.
We can se galaxies. Andromeda is visible to the naked eye in good conditions which tells us that it emits visiblelight.
The microwave background does not include any visible light.
So we know you are wrong again.
Post by: Halc on 22/05/2022 19:35:44
Redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity.Quite wrong. It is coordinate system dependent (as your wiki graph shows), and I can have say a ship approach Earth at say 0.8c and show zero red or blue shift all the way. Lack of redshift doesn't imply zero velocity. Presence of redshift doesn't imply nonzero velocity.
Quote
Converting from redshift z to velocity v measured in km/sec is easy - the formula is v = c z.No valid coordinate system yields that figure, so this too is entirely wrong. It's just a cheap Newtonian approximation for slow moving thing that shows only Doppler effect and no relativistic effects at all.
Quote
We should focus only on linear relation.Why just the wrong one?
Quote
Redshift can't give us any indication about the distance.Unless you utilize the BBT.
Quote
In general we can assume that the faster it moves the further it is located.Not unless you assume BBT. Without that, you're back to square 1.
Quote
Hubble verified that there is some sort of correlation between the distance to redshiftYea, and it wasn't v=cz, a relation that had been discredited over half a century before the recession findings.
Quote
Hence, redshift is all about velociy and it is a severe mistake to extract the distance from the redshift.Do you have empirical evidence (like Hubble does) that such a relation is wrong? You don't. So it's you making the severe mistake of ignoring empirical measurements. This is straight denial of evidence Dave. A new theory might better explain evidence, but if you need to deny the evidence itself, it turns into religion, not science. Again, don't make me lock the topic.
Quote
Based on that understanding we can't know the exact distance to that GN-z11 galaxy, however, it is still in a distance that we can observe.They know it's distance pretty accurately. The error bars are not large.
Quote
If one day we would improve our tools, we might see other galaxys that are located further away (with higher or lower redshift).Only a little further, beyond which galaxies have not yet formed enough to, well, be galaxies. Any more distant galaxy has to be well on this side of the CMB barrier since the 'dark ages' (at least 300M years worth) lie between.
Quote
It is not realistic to assume that galaxies that are moving away from us at 1100c (or higher) had been created just 13.8 By ago.No. If it was moving that fast, it would have been here about 43 million years ago, so according to that bit of nonsense, the universe is only 43 billion years old when those most distant galaxies where here.
Cosmological coordinates very much supports a recession speed of 1100c. A galaxy currently ~15 trillion LY away would be receding about that fast. That's trivially calculated by Hubble's law. We'd not be able to see light from it since it is well outside the visible universe. No light that we see today has ever been further away than a proper distance of about 6 BLY away, or 7 BLY if you use inertial coordinates.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 04:07:37
As long as we monitor the observation by the BBT filtering, we only get "evidences" that meet the BBT requirements.
Therefore, there is no room for better explanation based on those BBT filtered "evidences".
I have got the impression that you are ready to give me the possibility to eliminate the BBT filtering (including the idea of space expansion):
QuoteQuoteYea. You get redshift of 11 and not much more.
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
So, are you ready to give me the possibility to eliminate that BBT filtering?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42There's no reason you can't, but like I said, those very measurements support the BBT.
As the BBT can only explain the observable universe size, while we do understand that the real universe should be significantly bigger than the observable universe - why can't we look again on the measurements without the BBT filtering?
Unless we ignore the idea of space expansion and offer better theory that can explain that kind of figure.QuoteQuoteNo valid coordinate system yields that figure, so this too is entirely wrong.
Converting from redshift z to velocity v measured in km/sec is easy - the formula is v = c z.
It's just a cheap Newtonian approximation for slow moving thing that shows only Doppler effect and no relativistic effects at all.Would you kindly give me the possibility to focus on Newtonian also for high velocity.
Hubble had found that as we go further away it is expected to find galaxies with higher redshit, Never the less, its empirical measurements aren't fully linear.QuoteQuoteDo you have empirical evidence (like Hubble does) that such a relation is wrong? You don't. So it's you making the severe mistake of ignoring empirical measurements.
Hence, redshift is all about velocity and it is a severe mistake to extract the distance from the redshift.
We can see it in the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
We can discuss about it.
However, I would like to verify your permission to eliminate the BBT filtering including the idea of space expansion and let me use that cheap Newtonian formula also for high velocity.
If there is no permission, then I would stop the discussion about the redshift.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 04:50:02
The microwave background does not include any visible light.Those galaxies with high redshift are located too far away from us to get their visible light.
So we know you are wrong again.
Therefore, the CMBR is all about energy heat radiation.
However, as we move further away, the heat energy is decreasing by R^2 while the total galaxies no is increasing by R^3.
Therefore, we can get the CMBR heat energy from up to redshift of about 1100. Above it the heat energy is totally neglected.
Therefore, the total temp of CMBR is just 2.7K
However, if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR with redshift of above 1100.
Therefore, as long as we keep the BBT filtering, you would consider that I'm wrong.
Please look carefully on this diagram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPGIf we would understand how it works, we would understand how the entire universe works.
No. If it was moving that fast, it would have been here about 43 million years ago, so according to that bit of nonsense, the universe is only 43 billion years old when those most distant galaxies where here.Please be aware that we get the CMBR heat energy from up to 1100c galaxies.
However, as the universe has no limit, there are other galaxies at further location with higher redshift.
Theoretically if the universe is infinite and it is full with galaxies, then 43 B years is not good enough for the total age of the entire universe.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/05/2022 06:10:59
It is not realistic to assume that galaxies that are moving away from us at 1100c (or higher) had been created just 13.8 By ago.
Why not?
So, are you ready to give me the possibility to eliminate that BBT filtering?
When a better theory comes along, yes.
Would you kindly give me the possibility to focus on Newtonian also for high velocity.
Newton's equations don't give accurate answers at such high velocities. You need relativistic ones for that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 06:28:14
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:07:37Thanks
So, are you ready to give me the possibility to eliminate that BBT filtering?
When a better theory comes along, yes.
Do appreciate!
So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:07:37Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.
Would you kindly give me the possibility to focus on Newtonian also for high velocity.
Newton's equations don't give accurate answers at such high velocities. You need relativistic ones for that.
Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.
But please don't kill my message in the first bumper.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/05/2022 06:51:49
So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?
If a better explanation for galactic recession is ever discovered, yes.
Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.
Well, you can, but it'll be wrong.
Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.
As long as it's not Theory D.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2022 08:37:45
So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?Only if you can do it without saying things that are clearly wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2022 08:41:53
However, if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR with redshift of above 1100.We had the tech to detect longer wavelengths before we could detect the microwaves of which the cmbr is made.
We looked.
It isn't there.
Your idea is wrong.
It's not me who is blindly following an impossible idea.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 09:06:00
ThanksSo, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?If a better explanation for galactic recession is ever discovered, yes.Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.Well, you can, but it'll be wrong.Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.As long as it's not Theory D.
Well as there is an evolvment in the BBT, there is also evolvment in my understanding about the best theory for our Universe.
I would like to base my theory on Bogie_smiles theory for infinite bangs:
QuoteQuoteB_S suggests explosions of new material periodically occurring at random locations in existing space which would just form a black hole and not result in any matter at all. If anyone was actually capable of producing a new viable theory, they'd not be wasting their time posting it on a forum.
What about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?
So, we start while the Universe is infinite in its size / age and explosions of new material periodically occurring at random locations in existing space which would just form a black hole.
In our universe there is no space expansion no dark matter and no dark energy.
What we see is what we have.
If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?
As long as you monitor my message base on the BBT filtering, then you might consider that it is clearly wrong.So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?Only if you can do it without saying things that are clearly wrong.
However, if you have the possibility to set out the BBT glass from your eyes and focus on the basic elements of my theory, you would find that it is correct.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2022 12:06:32
As long as you monitor my message base on the BBT filtering,The BBT is not involved here.
Your idea predicts that there's lots of long wave radiation along with teh CMBR.
There is not.
So you are wrong.
The only one looking through a BBT filter is you.
You are assuming that everything wrong with your idea is to do with the BBT.
It isn't.
Your idea would have been known to be wrong without a BBT.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 12:31:05
Your idea predicts that there's lots of long wave radiation along with the CMBR.How did you get to this long wave radiation idea?
There is not.
So you are wrong.
I only claimed that if we could monitor the same microwave wave radiation from galaxies that are located further away, we could verify that their redshift is higher than 1100.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 12:42:52
The only one looking through a BBT filter is you.Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.
You are assuming that everything wrong with your idea is to do with the BBT.
It isn't.
Your idea would have been known to be wrong without a BBT.
However, I hope that by now we all should know that our real universe is quite bigger than that.
This by itself should convince you that there is a severe error in the BBT as it is.
I would like to offer you a solution for unlimited size universe without any need for space expansion.
You should be happy with that solution.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2022 12:44:16
How did you get to this long wave radiation idea?From your post.
if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR with redshift of above 1100.
We have the technology, and we looked.
But we don't see this figment of your imagination.
If the redshift was bigger the wavelengths would be longer.
Which part of your post did you not understand?
Do you now realise that the reason your post is wrong has nothing to do with BBT?
Do you realise that the one who is obsessed with the BBT is you- because you refuse to understand it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2022 12:45:39
I would like to offer you a solutionYour "solution" gets things wrong so it is not a solution, it is a problem.
We have enough problems thanks.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 19:12:22
We have the technology, and we looked.I have found a very interesting article about the CMBR:
But we don't see this figment of your imagination.
If the redshift was bigger the wavelengths would be longer.
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/how-do-we-know-that-the-cmb-is-from-a-hot-early-universe/
They discuss about extra-galactic background light (EGBL):
The extra-galactic background light
We have also, over the last few decades, determined the components of what is known as the extra-galactic background light, which just means the light coming from beyond our galaxy. When I say “light”, I don’t just mean visible light, but light from across the electromagnetic spectrum from gamma rays all the way down to radio waves. Here are the actual data of the extra-galactic background light (EGBL)"
Here is a cartoon (from Andrew Jaffe) which shows the various components of the EGBL.
https://thecuriousastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/img_9078.jpg
It is stated:
"on the plot is an indicator of the energy in the photons at that wavelength (or frequency). The energy of the photons from the CMB is greater than the energy of photons coming from all stars in all the galaxies in the Universe; even though each photon in the CMB carries very little energy (because they have such a long wavelength or low frequency)."
The following statement: "each photon in the CMB carries very little energy", proves that those CMB photons come from all the galaxies in the very deep space (outside the observable universe) which we can't see any more due to their ultra far away location.
So, due to their ultra far away location (outside the observable universe), their photon carries very little energy, However, as there are billions over billions galaxies there - in their total energy "The energy of the photons from the CMB is greater than the energy of photons coming from all stars in all the galaxies in the Universe" (Observable universe)
Actually, our scientists claim that there is a problem with the assumption that the CMB comes from the early Universe:
"If the CMB comes from the early Universe, then its light has to travel through intervening material like galaxies, gas between galaxies and clusters of galaxies. You might be wondering why we don’t see any absorption lines in the CMB’s spectrum in the same way that we do in the light coming from the surfaces of stars."
They have found a solution for that:
"The answer is simple, the photons in the CMB do not have enough energy to excite any electrons in any hydrogen or helium atoms (which is what 99% of the Universe is), and so no absorption lines are produced."
Sorry, how can they claim that "CMB do not have enough energy", while based on the BBT it was created when the Universe temp was 3,000K:
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/what-is-the-redshift-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb/
"When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen."
I think that as "each photon in the CMB carries very little energy" proves that it comes from galaxies outside the observable universe as I have stated.
We have enough problems thanks.Please, let me help you to overcome those problems by ignoring the BBT filtering.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/05/2022 22:50:15
Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.
No, it can explain the creation of the Universe as a whole.
If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?
No. As has been pointed out to you many times before, that violates special relativity.
Post by: Origin on 24/05/2022 02:31:52
If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?
No, that is not correct.
Recession velocity =
So for z=11, the recession velocity is 295,657,389 m/s.
You know the recession velocity isn't >c because we can see the galaxy!
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 03:30:43
If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?
No, that is not correct.
Recession velocity =
So for z=11, the recession velocity is 295,657,389 m/s.
You know the recession velocity isn't >c because we can see the galaxy!
Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
Recessional velocity is the rate at which an extragalactic astronomical object recedes (becomes more distant) from an observer as a result of the expansion of the universe.[1] It can be measured by observing the wavelength shifts of spectral lines emitted by the object, known as the object's cosmological redshift.
The expansion of the universe is integrated part of the BBT.
I consider that redshift is all about linear velocity stamp that comes with the far end galaxy light
We can still see it due to relative velocity (with ref to the observer as explained by einstein)
Never the less, even without filtering this request of the BBT we can go on.
Simple questiin-
If all the galaxies that we observe are moving slower than the speed of light (at any redsfit 1, 10 or technically even infinity), then why do they come with so dramatic change in their integrated redshift?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35
Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.
No, it can explain the creation of the Universe as a whole.
Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?
So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?
The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.
If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?
If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?
How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?
If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.
So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?
How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2022 09:07:28
Sorry, how can they claim that "CMB do not have enough energy", while based on the BBT it was created when the Universe temp was 3,000K:Because science says so.
You should try learning it.
Post by: Origin on 24/05/2022 12:46:21
Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space:That's nice, but did you understand that this statement, "If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c" is incorrect?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
Recessional velocity is the rate at which an extragalactic astronomical object recedes (becomes more distant) from an observer as a result of the expansion of the universe.[1] It can be measured by observing the wavelength shifts of spectral lines emitted by the object, known as the object's cosmological redshift.
The expansion of the universe is integrated part of the BBT.
I consider that redshift is all about linear velocity stamp that comes with the far end galaxy light
We can still see it due to relative velocity (with ref to the observer as explained by einstein)
Never the less, even without filtering this request of the BBT we can go on.
If all the galaxies that we observe are moving slower than the speed of lightAgain, if we can observe the galaxy then obviously its recession velocity is less than c.
then why do they come with so dramatic change in their integrated redshift?What do you mean by that?
Post by: Halc on 24/05/2022 15:01:59
A variety of possible recessional velocity vs. redshift functions including the simple linear relation v = czThat simple formula is useful only at very low speeds. A police radar gun uses it to measure car speeds, but it falls apart once speeds get up to tens of thousands of km/sec.
Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
That page is indeed based on expansion since it references concepts such as vpec which is an absolute (frame independent) concept. Cosmic coordinates are absolute, unlike inertial coordinates.
Origin's formula for recession velocity is for special relativity, which is not based on expansion. The formula assumes velocity is directly away from the observer and it gets more complicated if there is a significant tangential component.
Again, if we can observe the galaxy then obviously its recession velocity is less than c.Careful. Relative to an inertial frame, recession velocity is indeed less than c. Relative to Earth's inertial frame, the entire universe is under 15 BLY in radius. Post 61 explains the differences. Hubble's law holds in both kinds of coordinate systems, so recession velocity is still about 70 km/sec/mpc.Relative to say an expanding metric, recession velocity is unlimited, as is the size of the universe, and we can see objects receding at up to about 2.3c (or more if Webb finds a more distant one).
I think only under some ancient theory that put light speed relative to the velocity of the emitter would one not be able to see light from an object receding at faster than c. But all known theories that suggest such things have been falsified.
Dave is rejecting the expanding metric that aligns with an expanding universe as described by BBT. That leaves special relativity unless Dave also rejects the constant speed of light.
Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe? So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?BBT is consistent with a universe without bounded size (cosmic coordinates). The view from the super distance place is the same as from here, per the cosmological principle, one of the premises of the BBT.
Quote
The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.No. Please don't tell us what the BBT says. Maybe no matter, depending on how you define it. Normal matter didn't start to form until after inflation epoch.
Quote
How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?Don't need to. It's already there as you say.
Quote
If I understand Halc correctlyI think you are incapable of that.
Quote
a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.No. A bang at a location in otherwise empty space does that, and also violates conservation laws. Relativity forbids it. BBT happened everywhere, not at a location in space, so there's no black hole.
Quote
How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?You seem to still be working on the assumption that this size is a number. It isn't. A size is something only applicable to a finite thing. Infinity isn't a number.
Look up discussion on Hilbert's hotel, which wonderfully illustrates how one can go about expanding infinite space.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/05/2022 16:37:52
Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?
Yes.
So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?
Yes.
The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.
It doesn't say that. You can start off with infinite space at the very beginning.
If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?
No, because it would be far too hot for matter to exist.
If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?
Who said we were changing it?
How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?
The energy was already there too.
If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.
You don't understand him correctly. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?
It's not a problem because you misunderstood Halc.
How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?
Quite easily. Infinity is unbounded. You can expand space as much as you want because infinity is not some kind of number that represents a physical limit for the expansion of space.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/05/2022 17:31:01
Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?
Yes.So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?
Yes.
The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.
It doesn't say that. You can start off with infinite space at the very beginning.
If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?
No, because it would be far too hot for matter to exist.If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?
Who said we were changing it?
How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?
The energy was already there too.If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.
You don't understand him correctly. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?
It's not a problem because you misunderstood Halc.How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?
Quite easily. Infinity is unbounded. You can expand space as much as you want because infinity is not some kind of number that represents a physical limit for the expansion of space.
Thanks Kryptid
I really don't understand the added value of the bang in that infinite universe and how it works.
If I understand the classical BBT, there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.
Suddenly, 13.8 B years ago, out of the blue, there was a Big Bang.
That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.
As the space expands and cools down, the energy had been transformed into protons and latter on to Hydrogen atoms without any sort of external help
No one can ask how that infinite energy had been delivered to the universe that was not there.
So far so good.
Now, let's move on to the universe with infinite space that was there long before the bang.
With yur permission, I would call this theory - The infinite BBT theory.
In this theory, the space in the universe was already infinite with energy but without any matter.
So, the questions are as follow:
1. What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?
No atoms, no particles no quarks nothing at all.
2. Why that energy can't be transformed to real matter without the bang?
Let's assume that there was some kind of energy in the infinite space and due to that energy the temp is fixed all over the universe - however, I assume that it must be a finite heat/temp (T).
So, as the BBT can only reuse the existing energy/heat in that infinite universe, and as the bang took place at the entire infinite universe at the same moment, then how this bang can increase the energy/heat of the universe by even one degree?
So, as the bang can't add any new energy/heat in that infinite universe, how the bang can set any sort of contribution in order to transform the existing energy to real matter?
3. I still don't understand how a bang that is using the current energy from the existing space can suddenly expand the space?
Please remember - as the infinite Universe is already there, you can't claim that it is feasible to bypass those laws at the moment of the bang. the existing infinite universe must fully obey to all science law - before, at the bang and after the bang.
Therefore, is there any possibility for any sort of energy to set a bang which could expand the space itself without breaking the science law?
Do we have any valid science law for that?
4. How a theory that can break any science law that we wish (due to the idea that there is no space in the universe) could be considered the same theory to the one that can't break even one tinny law of science as the space of this universe is already infinite?
Why do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/05/2022 21:23:56
If I understand the classical BBT, there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.
As far as I'm aware, the classical BBT says there is no such thing as "before the bang".
That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.
Not so. There energy was already there. All the Big Bang did was spread that energy out more.
No one can ask how that infinite energy had been delivered to the universe that was not there.
It wasn't delivered to the Universe. It was already there.
In this theory, the space in the universe was already infinite with energy but without any matter.
That's consistent with the Big Bang theory.
1. What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?
No atoms, no particles no quarks nothing at all.
Likely just the particles of the unified force and maybe the Higgs field too (i.e. bosons).
2. Why that energy can't be transformed to real matter without the bang?
It would be too hot otherwise.
So, as the BBT can only reuse the existing energy/heat in that infinite universe, and as the bang took place at the entire infinite universe at the same moment, then how this bang can increase the energy/heat of the universe by even one degree?
It didn't. It decreased the temperature instead. As the Universe expands, it gets cooler.
3. I still don't understand how a bang that is using the current energy from the existing space can suddenly expand the space?
Space expansion is, to the best of our knowledge, caused by a form of energy inherent to space itself and is thus not dependent upon the energy contribution from subatomic particles or other matter in that same space.
Therefore, is there any possibility for any sort of energy to set a bang which could expand the space itself without breaking the science law?
What science law are you proposing that it is breaking?
4. How a theory that can break any science law that we wish
I don't think the Big Bang theory can do that.
(due to the idea that there is no space in the universe)
Who ever said that?
could be considered the same theory to the one that can't break even one tinny law of science as the space of this universe is already infinite?
I've been talking about the Big Bang theory this whole time. What other theory are you referencing?
Why do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?
What two different things are you talking about?
Post by: Halc on 25/05/2022 22:00:55
If I understand the classical BBTEvery time you say these words, it means you're spouting something that you know is wrong.
Quote
there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.BBT is not a creation theory any more than evolution theory is an explanation of abiogenesis. It does not posit something from nothing. It only describes the evolution of the universe from the initial singularity.
Quote
That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.Not a small space. Just high density, but it specifies no size, which would be a number. Don't mistake the word 'singularity' for a thing with a size.
Quote
Now, let's move on to the universe with infinite space that was there long before the bang.No. Time as we know it is not defined prior to the singularity any more than altitude above your house is defined lower than the center of Earth, and also as gravitational potential is not meaningful for values above (*) the potential of a zero-energy universe. ( * A white hole is arguably an exception to this, but it is a mathematical solution that doesn't seem to actually exist anywhere)
Spacetime itself is not defined at the singularity. These things emerged later, near say the Planck epoch. The universe has many temporal singularities. The big bang is just one of them.
Quote
What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?The energy (sans 'matter') was arguably a function of the various fields, except even those took some time to separate out into the various distinct fields. A unified quantum field theory would give a better answer to the above question, and it is still a work in progress. Fields have been merged by different approaches, but never all of them into one unified field.
Indeed, there was zero context to that question.QuoteWhy do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?What two different things are you talking about?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/05/2022 19:52:57
In my opinion, there are several problems with the BBT. However, the main problems are:
Energy and space expansion.
Energy is a key issue in any object or theory.
We can't move a finger without having real energy.
That energy should come from somewhere.
Unfortunately, the BBT doesn't offer any idea how the energy for our universe had been created/delivered...
Instead you claim:
It wasn't delivered to the Universe. It was already there.So, we have to accept the idea that the whole BBT energy was already there.
However, I have few questions:
1. Why can't we ask about the time before the bang? Why do we need to start from that point?
2. For how long it was already there? Is it just one second or infinite time?
3. Why can't we understand how the energy had created/accumulated?
4. If it was already there before the bang, then why it didn't bang long before?
BBT is not a creation theory any more than evolution theory is an explanation of abiogenesis. It does not posit something from nothing. It only describes the evolution of the universe from the initial singularity.Don't you agree that based on the BBT we are living in a space that had been created by the BBT due to the expansion?
So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?
I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?
With regards to "evolve"
The BBT evolves from a very specific starting point while the energy is already there.
Based on this logic, why can't we technically start from any starting point that we wish?
Why can't we start a theory while the matter and the space is already there or even when the Erath itself is there?
How can we decide what is the correct starting point for a theory?
What other theory are you referencing?I personally think that a theory without clear explanation about the source of energy can't be considered as real theory.
Somehow, energy must be created somewhere - even if you believe that it was already there.
So please - If it was already there - please try to explain how it got there.
If you can't do so, then why don't we open our mind to another theory that can explain how energy could be created?
Don't you agree that it is our obligation to offer a solution for the source of energy?
Therefore, I refer to a theory that can explain how energy could be created out of something in our Universe.
We must remember that energy can't be created out of nothing.
Therefore, as the BBT starts out of nothing - there is no possibility to get any energy under those conditions.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/05/2022 20:13:35
Energy is a key issue in any object or theory.
We can't move a finger without having real energy.
That energy should come from somewhere.
No other theory in science explains the ultimate source of the energy involved in the processes that it describes. The theory of evolution obviously involves energy, but it isn't a theory about what that energy's ultimate origins are. Since the Big Bang theory is an explanation for how the Universe evolved once it came into existence, and not how the Universe actually came into existence in the first place, then it shouldn't have to explain it either.
1. Why can't we ask about the time before the bang? Why do we need to start from that point?
If the Big Bang represents the beginning of time, then it doesn't make sense to ask about what came before. You can't go back before the beginning of time because there is no such thing.
2. For how long it was already there? Is it just one second or infinite time?
Possibly zero time (hence the idea of it being the beginning of time).
3. Why can't we understand how the energy had created/accumulated?
Who knows? The Big Bang doesn't answer that question (it never had to).
4. If it was already there before the bang, then why it didn't bang long before?
If it was the beginning of time, then the energy was there at the same time as the Big Bang, not before.
Don't you agree that based on the BBT we are living in a space that had been created by the BBT due to the expansion?
So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?
If there was an infinite amount of space at the beginning of time and an infinite amount of space now, then the Big Bang didn't create all of space. It did create new space, but space was already there as well.
I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?
Because the alternative (galaxies travelling through space faster than light) violates special relativity.
Based on this logic, why can't we technically start from any starting point that we wish?
You could, but scientists are interested in just how far back we can start. The Big Bang, so far, is as far back as we can currently make models that are testable.
I personally think that a theory without clear explanation about the source of energy can't be considered as real theory.
Then there is no such thing as a real theory, as no theory explains the ultimate source of the energy that it uses.
I personally think that a theory without clear explanation about the source of energy can't be considered as real theory.
Somehow, energy must be created somewhere - even if you believe that it was already there.
So please - If it was already there - please try to explain how it got there.
I can speculate on that all day, but if I can't test those speculations, then it isn't science.
If you can't do so, then why don't we open our mind to another theory that can explain how energy could be created?
If a theory shows up that can explain it, then I'm sure scientists would indeed be open to it.
Don't you agree that it is our obligation to offer a solution for the source of energy?
If such a thing can be discovered. It might be impossible.
Therefore, I refer to a theory that can explain how energy could be created out of something in our Universe.
Such a (viable) theory does not yet exist.
We must remember that energy can't be created out of nothing.
Therefore, as the BBT starts out of nothing - there is no possibility to get any energy under those conditions.
The Big Bang theory does not start out with nothing. As has been said before, it starts with energy and space already there.
Post by: Origin on 26/05/2022 20:39:54
So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?The reasons are many but the 2 most obvious are:
I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?
1. All distant galaxies are moving away from us.
2. The farther away a galaxy is from us the faster the galaxy is receding.
The only logical answer to these 2 observations is that space between the galaxies is expanding.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/05/2022 05:33:07
So you clearly confirm that we measure ONLY the galaxies!So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?The reasons are many but the 2 most obvious are:
I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?
1. All distant galaxies are moving away from us.
2. The farther away a galaxy is from us the faster the galaxy is receding.
The only logical answer to these 2 observations is that space between the galaxies is expanding.Let me reuse this brilliant logic:
Let's assume that we are living on a different planet.
We have no knowledge about the Earth.
However, based on our technology we can only observe houses in LA.
Just houses. Nothing else. Not even the land.
Based on our observation we see an expansion of houses in LA.
We all try to find a solution for the expansion of houses in LA.
More than that, we have discovered that in the last years there is acceleration in that expansion.
One of our scientist even found the acceleration rate of the houses in LA.
So, we all wonder how it could be that those houses expand so dramatically.
After long discussion we have decided that the only logical answer for that is: expansion in LA land.
Would you accept this brilliant logic???
Sorry, there is no expansion in land or in space.
This is just imagination!
Not even one Pico Millimeter per 10^1000...000 Billion of a trillion Light year.
The universe has a fixed infinite space, it was fixed for the last infinite time and it would stay fix for the coming infinite time.
It is your obligation to explain the galaxies expansion without using the imagination that is called space expansion.
Unless - you can really measure the space coordinates of the Universe and prove this wrong logic.
The Big Bang theory does not start out with nothing. As has been said before, it starts with energy and space already there.If it starts with energy and space, then how can you claim that?
If the Big Bang represents the beginning of time, then it doesn't make sense to ask about what came beforeDon't you see the contradiction?
Sorry, if there was energy and/or space in the pre bang era - then you can't claim that there was no time.The
You can't ignore that era.
It is your obligation to fully understand the conditions/ process that creates the bang including its energy.
The theory of evolution obviously involves energy, but it isn't a theory about what that energy's ultimate origins are.This is a big mistake.
Since the Big Bang theory is an explanation for how the Universe evolved once it came into existence,Sorry - the expansion of the space creates new space. It is not evolvement - it is creation!
So please, if based on the BBT it creates new space (due to the expansion in the Universe - even if it is infinite) then this theory should be considered as creation and not evolvement.
then it shouldn't have to explain it either.Sorry - you have to explain it all.
You can't just explain the section that you wish.
If the Big Bang represents the beginning of time, then it doesn't make sense to ask about what came before. You can't go back before the beginning of time because there is no such thing.As you claim that there was energy and space before the bang - then it is your obligation to explain it before the bang.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:52:57We should know.
3. Why can't we understand how the energy had created/accumulated?
Who knows? The Big Bang doesn't answer that question (it never had to).
If we don't know - then there is a fatal error in the BBT.
If it was the beginning of time, then the energy was there at the same time as the Big Bang, not before.So, you specifically claim that the energy had popped out at the moment of the bang.
Therefore, it is not about "already there" but it is absolutely new energy that popped in.
If there was an infinite amount of space at the beginning of time and an infinite amount of space now, then the Big Bang didn't create all of space.If it didn't create any space, then the whole idea of space expansion is irrelevant.
Because the alternative (galaxies travelling through space faster than light) violates special relativity.You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
So far so good.
So why do we need a space expansion to prove that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
Please take a decision - do they move faster than light or not?
If they are not moving faster than light - there is no need for space expansion.
If they are moving faster than light then the understanding that they do not move faster due to relativity is wrong.
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/05/2022 08:37:10
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?What would be the point?
It has already been explained.
You don't listen.
They don't say how they measure distance in that graph. There are many ways to do so, and they're approximately the same only for nearby objects. That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much. But we see galaxies much further away than that, and distances become meaningless without specification of coordinate system used. My example object is GN-z11, a very distant galaxy. Some typical choices:
1) Inertial coordinates: Only in inertial coordinates is light speed a constant c, and the coordinate system only applies to space that is more or less Minkowskian (flat), which is not true at large scales. In such coordinates, light can get from anywhere to anywhere else given enough time. There are no event horizons. The Milne solution uses such coordinates. Using such coordinates, the current size of the entire universe (relative to the inertial frame of Earth) is a sphere of radius about 13.8 BLY. Distances are measured along lines of simultaneity in the chosen frame. GN-z11 is about 13.5 BLY away, and the light we see now was emitted 6.7 BY ago.
2) Proper distance, comoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.
GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.
Et seq.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/05/2022 10:03:33
If I understand Halc correctly, the following CS is used by the BBT in order to find a solution for the H0.
2) Proper distance, commoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent commoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.
GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.
So, the idea is that our scientists think that H0 sets the age of the universe regardless of its size.
As it is very clear to our scientists that there is no way to fit all galaxies in the universe (even if it is just the observable one) in just 13.8 BY, they have invented a brilliant idea - the space itself is expanding and they call it - commoving coordinates.
Hence, the job of those commoving coordinates is to carry those galaxies that refuse to move at velocity that is higher than the speed of light, to very far locations in a finite time that is - 13.8 BY.
Hence, the universe must obey to the H0 formula.
As the H0 formula tells us that the age of the Universe is 13.8By it is our obligation to fit the entire universe to this finite time.
However, how do we know the real size of the Universe and which universe we are using? Is it the observable universe or the real universe which could be infinite?
I do recall that Halc has stated that in order to get a size of one millions times the size of the observable universe - about 30 B years are needed.
So, why we can't give longer age to our Universe, Why do we insist on 13.8 BY (based on H0)?
Do you consider a possibility for error in this H0 calculation/formula?
How can you try to fit a mighty universe that technically could be infinite in its size to this formulas that might be incorrect?
With regards to space-energy:
The BBT is based on the Idea that the Energy is fixed while the space is increasing.
Why you refuse to think on the other way: The space is fixed while the energy is increasing.
If you don't know how the energy could be increased - it doesn't mean that the energy doesn't increase.
So please - try to fit the theory to the Universe and not the universe to your incorrect formula!
In order to do so we must first understand the size and age of the Universe - and just then try to find some sort of Theory, formulas to this universe.
Those scientists that are puzzled almost on every new discovery/observation - prove that they don't really understand how our infinite universe really works.
They need some technical support.
So please - try to look again on all the observations without the BBT filtering, remember that the space is always fixed and try to find a way how to increase the energy.
If you do so, you would solve the enigma of the Universe.
Any new observation should fit our theory by 100% - no less than that!
In the first no fit (or puzzled scientists) it is our obligation to ignore the current theory (any theory that we might have) and look for better on.
Post by: Origin on 27/05/2022 13:48:24
Let me reuse this brilliant logic:I don't detect any logic at all. All I see is some nonsensical rambling reply that has nothing to do with with the point I made.
Let's assume that we are living on a different planet.
We have no knowledge about the Earth.
However, based on our technology we can only observe houses in LA.
Just houses. Nothing else. Not even the land.
Based on our observation we see an expansion of houses in LA.
We all try to find a solution for the expansion of houses in LA.
More than that, we have discovered that in the last years there is acceleration in that expansion.
One of our scientist even found the acceleration rate of the houses in LA.
So, we all wonder how it could be that those houses expand so dramatically.
After long discussion we have decided that the only logical answer for that is: expansion in LA land.
Would you accept this brilliant logic???
Post by: Origin on 27/05/2022 13:52:56
You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.It is truly unfortunate that you cannot even understand this rather simple point. If you cannot even understand this it is no wonder that the finer points of the BBT have completely baffled you. I fear this is a waste of time since it seems this whole discussion is just a bit over your head.
So far so good.
So why do we need a space expansion to prove that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
Please take a decision - do they move faster than light or not?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/05/2022 17:56:13
Let me reuse this brilliant logic:
Let's assume that we are living on a different planet.
We have no knowledge about the Earth.
However, based on our technology we can only observe houses in LA.
Just houses. Nothing else. Not even the land.
Based on our observation we see an expansion of houses in LA.
We all try to find a solution for the expansion of houses in LA.
More than that, we have discovered that in the last years there is acceleration in that expansion.
One of our scientist even found the acceleration rate of the houses in LA.
So, we all wonder how it could be that those houses expand so dramatically.
After long discussion we have decided that the only logical answer for that is: expansion in LA land.
Would you accept this brilliant logic???
The distances between the houses in LA doesn't increase over time, so this is a false analogy.
Don't you see the contradiction?
No, I don't.
Sorry, if there was energy and/or space in the pre bang era
I don't claim that. Remember, if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time, then there is no such thing as "the pre-Big Bang era".
You can't ignore that era.
Unless such an era didn't exist (which it wouldn't if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time).
It is your obligation to fully understand the conditions/ process that creates the bang including its energy.
I have no such obligation.
This is a big mistake.
So the theory of evolution has to explain where the energy involved in life processes ultimately comes from? That does not follow.
Sorry - the expansion of the space creates new space. It is not evolvement - it is creation!
The creation of new space, yes. The creation of the Universe, no.
Sorry - you have to explain it all.
You can't just explain the section that you wish.
That's not how that works. Theories don't have to explain things outside of their area of interest.
As you claim that there was energy and space before the bang
I did not claim that. I claimed that there was energy and space in simultaneous existence with the bang.
We should know.
If we don't know - then there is a fatal error in the BBT.
No, it isn't. As has been pointed out before, what you are doing is akin to claiming that evolution has to explain abiogenesis when it doesn't.
So, you specifically claim that the energy had popped out at the moment of the bang.
I did not claim that. I do not claim that the Universe went from a state of no energy to a state of energy. I claim that the Universe had energy for as far back as the beginning of time. There was no zero-energy Universe before the beginning of time because such a statement makes no sense. You can't have something before the beginning of time.
If it didn't create any space
I didn't say that. I said that it didn't create all of space.
You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
That isn't what I said. I said that galaxies can't move through space faster than light. Space itself can expand faster than light just fine.
If they are moving faster than light then the understanding that they do not move faster due to relativity is wrong.
Relativity is extremely well tested, so this option is off the table.
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?
There is no contradiction. You simply misunderstood what I said.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/05/2022 18:10:47
If I understand Halc correctly,The odds are against that.
Post by: Halc on 27/05/2022 18:18:02
So you clearly confirm that we measure ONLY the galaxies!That and the CMB. There's not much more to measure at great distances.
Quote
It is your obligation to explain the galaxies expansion without using the imagination that is called space expansion.It's actually your job since you're the one asserting it. You're the one insisting that the workings of the universe are obligated to be understandable in terms a child with 3rd grade mathematics skills can understand.
Quote
Unless - you can really measure the space coordinates of the Universe and prove this wrong logic.Coordinate systems are not measured. They're abstract tools used to express locations, sizes, times and such.
Quote
You can't ignore that era.If space and time are part of a bounded universe, then it makes no sense to speak of either outside those bounds. I've given several examples of similar things.
Quote
This is a big mistake.This is apparently something you say when you cannot find fault with whatever has been said. You saying you want it to be wrong, but cannot demonstrate why.
If the Big Bang represents the beginning of time, then it doesn't make sense to ask about what came before. You can't go back before the beginning of time because there is no such thing.
Quote
As you claim that there was energy and space before the bangNobody claimed this. This is not a meaningful statement.
Quote
If we don't know - then there is a fatal error in the BBT.I don't know what gift I'll get for my upcoming birthday, but it does not follow that my lack of that knowledge constitutes a fatal error in the BBT.
Quote
You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.Nothing can move faster than c relative to an inertial frame. Cosmic coordinates are not inertial. Newton's laws of motion don't apply. The energy conservation laws derived from those laws do not apply.
So relative to our inertial frame, indeed, nothing can move faster than c, and the size of the universe cannot be larger than ~14 BY would allow. But that's only relative to inertial coordinates, and since real spacetime isn't Minkowskian, inertial coordinates do not work at the largest scales. Using such coordinates makes predictions that contradict empirical observations, but it's subtle. It wasn't until quite recently (25 years) that this became obvious.
Quote
So why do we need a space expansion to prove that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.Because only in an expanding coordinate system do those recession rates exceed c (but they don't recede faster than light, since light recedes even faster than the galaxies). Speed of light is constant only in inertial frames, so using any other coordinate system, one cannot reference 'the speed of light' since there isn't one.
Please take a decision - do they move faster than light or not?
If I understand Halc correctly, the following CS is used by the BBT in order to find a solution for the H0.No, the measured H0 is used for an initial approximation of of the universe age. It has nothing to do with any CS. It actually works in inertial coordinates as well.
If expansion was linear, H0 would yield the age of the universe exactly, but it isn't linear.
Quote
So, the idea is that our scientists think that H0 sets the age of the universe regardless of its size.Approximately, but yes, and it works with any of the first three coordinate systems. The 4th, as I've said, isn't a CS at all.
Quote
the job of those commoving coordinates is to carry those galaxiesCoordnates are abstractions, and abstractions describe things, they don't carry them.
Quote
Hence, the universe must obey to the H0 formula.No, the H0 formula must obey the universe. The universe is under no obligation to obey anything humans say such as all the nonsense you seem to insist for it.
Quote
Is it the observable universe or the real universe which could be infinite?What is the universe as is distinct from the real universe?
Quote
I do recall that Halc has stated that in order to get a size of one millions times the size of the observable universe - about 30 B years are needed.I said no such thing.
Quote
The BBT is based on the Idea that the Energy is fixedNo it isn't based on that. Energy conservation is frame dependent.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/05/2022 19:39:28
QuoteQuoteNothing can move faster than c relative to an inertial frame.
You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html
It is stated:
"The relative velocity of any two objects never exceeds the velocity of light. Applying the Lorentz transformation to the velocities, expressions are obtained for the relative velocities as seen by the different observers. They are called the Einstein velocity addition relationships."
A - Rest observer
B - Moving observer
C - Projectile fired by B
v - Velocity of B as seen by A
u' - velocity of projectile (C) as seen by B
u - Velocity of projectile as seen by A
The formula is as follow:
u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
This is the simple explanation based on relative velocity.
Now, let's try to understand the distance that C moved with reference to A at a given time - T.
The formula is:
S = V T
Hence,
Sba (The distance that B moved away from A) = v T
Scb (The distance that C moved away from B) = u' T
Therefore
The total distance that C moved away from A is:
Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') T
Hence, with regards to distance that C moved away from A at a given time T, its velocity is:
u = Sca / T = (v + u') T / T = v + u'
If v=0.8c and u' = 0.7c
u = 1.5c
So how can you explain that discovery based on simple calculation that:
S = V T ?
Do you see any error in this calculation?
Post by: Origin on 27/05/2022 20:15:16
Hence, with regards to distance that C moved away from A at a given time T, its velocity is:Nope.
u = Sca / T = (v + u') T / T = v + u'
Did you forget you wrote this ???
The formula is as follow:
u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
Dave, you should probably just give up, you're just making this worse.
Just to help you out, here is specifically where you went wrong:
Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') TFrom the frame of A the velocity of C would be u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2), because as you noted that is how you add velocities, NOT this [v +u']. From the frame of B it would true that C has a velocity u'.
Hope that helps.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/05/2022 20:21:25
The formula is as follow:
u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
If v=0.8c and u' = 0.7c
u = 1.5c
Let's plug those numbers into the equation and see if you are right:
u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c2)
u = (0.8 + 0.7) / (1 + ((0.8)(0.7))/(12))
u = (1.5) / (1 + ((0.56)/1))
u = (1.5) / (1.56)
u = ~0.9615c
Do you see any error in this calculation?
Yes. The answer is not 1.5c, it's ~0.9615c
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 03:06:17
QuoteThe formula for relative velocity is 100% correct.
The formula is as follow:
u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
Interesting that you quote this formula but then don't use it.
However, don't forget that Einstein had called it the "relative" velocity and not the "real" velocity.
So it should be:
u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
You very much know it's wrong, at least for inertial frames.I assume that "Inertial" frames means - relative.
So again with regards to relative velocity, the above formula is fully correct.
Now, would you kindly answer the following questions with regards to Real distance?
1. What is the distance formula?
Is it:
S = V T
2. What is the real distance that B moved away from A at a given time T?
Is it:
Sba (The distance that B moved away from A) = v T
3. What is the real distance that C moved away from B at a given time T?
From the frame of B it would true that C has a velocity u'.Is it:
Scb (The distance that C moved away from B) = u' T
4. What is the real distance that C moved away from A at a given time T
Is it:
Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') T
Do you agree so far with the calculations of the real distance that C moved away from A in a given time T?
Yes or no - Please.
If so:
5. What is the simple velocity formula?
Is it
V = S / T
6. So, why we can't claim that:
The real velocity of C with reference to A based on the real distance that it moved away at a given time T is:
Vca = Sca / T = u (real) = v + u'
Where is the error in this calculation?
Don't you agree that it is perfectly OK that the "relative" velocity would be different from the real velocity that is based on real distance?
Do you claim that relative velocity means real velocity?
Cosmological coordinates are not inertial, and the formula is different. It is an absolute frame, not a relative one, so Lorentz transformations do not directly apply.You clearly claim that Cosmological coordinates are not inertial, and the formula is different.
So, why we can't assume that based on the Cosmological coordinates we get the real velocity?
Why can't we assume that the Cosmological coordinates are fixed and the object moves at REAL velocity that is higher than c?.
Hence:
u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
u (real) = v + u'
If you think that "relative" velocity means real velocity, then why Einstein didn't call it: The "real" velocity?
Don't you agree that the relative formula by Einstein show us that he was very cleaver?
His formula tells us that even if the far away object (C) is moving away at real velocity - u (real) - which is higher than the speed of light, the Observer A would still be able to see it as the relative velocity is:
u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
Therefore, we clearly observe galaxies that are moving away at velocities that are greater than c.
If you still think that there is an error in the above calculation for real distance/velocity - then please specify the exact error in those calculations.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2022 06:00:35
However, don't forget that Einstein had called it the "relative" velocity and not the "real" velocity.
Because that would be redundant. He's talking about real velocities and not imaginary velocities. What relevance to physics would imaginary velocities be?
I assume that "Inertial" frames means - relative.
That's not what that means. "Inertial" means that the observer is not accelerating.
Don't you agree that it is perfectly OK that the "relative" velocity would be different from the real velocity that is based on real distance?
The relative velocity in a given frame is the real velocity in that frame. That's the whole point of special relativity: that there is no single, absolute velocity for an object. It can be sitting still in one frame, but moving in other frames. Both are equally valid and real.
Do you claim that relative velocity means real velocity?
Yes. Again, that's the point of special relativity.
If you think that "relative" velocity means real velocity, then why Einstein didn't call it: The "real" velocity?
It's redundant. Should we always call the charge on an electron "real" charge? Or the mass of the Earth "real" mass? When you say charge and mass, it's a given you are talking about real quantities. Same thing with relative velocity.
Therefore, we clearly observe galaxies that are moving away at velocities that are greater than c.
They are not moving through space faster than light relative to us. That would violate special relativity.
Why can't we assume that the Cosmological coordinates are fixed and the object moves at REAL velocity that is higher than c?.
Because that violates special relativity. Objects don't have one single, absolute, universal velocity.
u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
u (real) = v + u'
The second equation is wrong. The relative velocities are real, so you have to use the first equation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 06:06:30
The second equation is wrong. The relative velocities are real, so you have to use the first equation.
So please, Where is the error in the following calculation:
Now, would you kindly answer the following questions with regards to Real distance?
1. What is the distance formula?
Is it:
S = V T
2. What is the real distance that B moved away from A at a given time T?
Is it:
Sba (The distance that B moved away from A) = v T
3. What is the real distance that C moved away from B at a given time T?
Quote from: Origin on Yesterday at 20:15:16
From the frame of B it would true that C has a velocity u'.
Is it:
Scb (The distance that C moved away from B) = u' T
4. What is the real distance that C moved away from A at a given time T
Is it:
Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') T
Do you agree so far with the calculations of the real distance that C moved away from A in a given time T?
Yes or no - Please.
If so:
5. What is the simple velocity formula?
Is it
V = S / T
6. So, why we can't claim that:
The real velocity of C with reference to A based on the real distance that it moved away at a given time T is:
Vca = Sca / T = u (real) = v + u'
Where is the error in this calculation?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2022 06:17:43
Sca = Sba + Scb
There's your error. You can't just add those quantities together linearly when you have objects moving so close to the speed of light.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 07:04:08
Sca = Sba + Scb
There's your error. You can't just add those quantities together linearly when you have objects moving so close to the speed of light.
Sorry, it isn't a sum of velocities but sum of distances.
Where is it stated that it isn't allowed to sum distances?
So, in order to understand the situation let's assume the following:
At t0 the distance between A to B is S1 and the distance between C to B is S2.
Hence, do you agree that at t0 the distance between C to A is S1 + S2?
However after given time T:
Do you agree that B has to increase its distance to A by - Sba, while C has to increase its distance to B by - Scb?
Yes or no please.
If So, why can't we understand that after T the Total distance between C to A is:
S (Total - ca) = S1 + S2 + Sba + Sca
Can you please direct me to (Einstein, Lorentz or any) explanation that prevents the possibility to sum distances?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2022 07:08:52
Sorry, it isn't a sum of velocities but sum of distances.
It's a related problem.
Where is it stated that it isn't allowed to sum distances?
Because distance is also relative. Ever heard of length contraction?
So, in order to understand the situation let's assume the following:
At t0 the distance between A to B is S1 and the distance between C to B is S2.
Hence, do you agree that at t0 the distance between C to A is S1 + S2?
However after given time T:
Do you agree that B has to increase its distance to A by - Sba, while C has to increase its distance to B by - Scb?
Yes or no please.
If So, why can't we understand that after T the Total distance between C to A is:
S (Total - ca) = S1 + S2 + Sba + Sca
Can you please direct me to (Einstein, Lorentz or any) explanation that prevents the possibility to sum distances?
The distances between those different objects for any given moment of time is going to differ between reference frames (hence needing to take length contraction into consideration). So no, you can't just add those distances together because you are taking distances from different reference frames. A road that looks like it's a kilometer long to me standing on the ground will appear to be much shorter than that for an object moving close to the speed of light relative to the road.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 17:36:22
Because distance is also relative. Ever heard of length contraction?So, relative velocity / distance means real velocity /distance.
Two examples -
1. We look at a picture of a small boy standing at the front while the biggest elephant in the planet is somewhere in the background. We can see that in this photo the Boy is relatively bigger than the elephant.
So, does it mean that the boy is really bigger than this elephant?
2. Let's assume that there are 1001 point in a row in space that are all moving in the same direction.
Each one is moving at 0.9c with reference to the one before.
Therefore, there are 1000 segments where in each segment the distance is increasing by 0.9c T.
Due to the relatively velocity law, the first one can still observe the last one as their relative velocity must be less than the speed of light.
I must say that it is very difficult for me to accept the idea that also in this case the real distance between the two ends of this raw (with 1000 segments in between) is increasing at the maximum by only c(almost) * T .
The distances between those different objects for any given moment of time is going to differ between reference framesWhy can't we use one single frame (the Universe frame) to all?
In any case, as your message is clear and there is nothing for me to change this message, there is no need to continue the discussion about this issue.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2022 17:48:38
1. We look at a picture of a small boy standing at the front while the biggest elephant in the planet is somewhere in the background. We can see that in this photo the Boy is relatively bigger than the elephant.
So, does it mean that the boy is bigger than this elephant?
False analogy. Relativity is about actual changes in distance, not illusory changes caused by perspective.
Therefore, there are 1000 segments where in each segment the distance is increasing by 0.9c T.
That would be viable if you are saying, from the reference frame of each individual segment, that it sees the next segment in the line moving away from it at 0.9c. However, you can't say that the first segment in the line sees each subsequent segment moving at 0.9c away from every segment that preceded it. That would mean that each segment was moving at 0.9c, 1.8c, 2.7c, etc. in its reference frame, which would violate special relativity.
However, I must say that it is very difficult for me to accept that idea that also in this case the real distance between the two ends of this raw (with 1000 segments in between) is increasing at the maximum by only c(almost) * T .
The speed of light is the upper limit to movement through space, so that's all it can increase by. Length contraction and time dilation is how that problem is solved.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 20:12:46
The speed of light is the upper limit to movement through space, so that's all it can increase by.When you say "space" do you mean the entire space - even if it is infinite?
Is there any possibility to claim that?
"The speed of light is the upper limit to movement through "any local space"?
Therefore, let's look again at the following image:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Hubble-diagram-or-the-velocity-distance-relation-plot-for-type-Ia-supernovae_fig1_331983227
We are located at the red dot in this graph.
As we move further away, the velocity of the galaxies is increasing almost linearity.
However, nothing around any point can move faster than the speed of light up to the maximal distance (let's call it P1) in this graph.
Now, do you agree that if we jump to that P1 (or n times P1), we should see a very similar linear graph?
So, why can't we understand that at any point (up to the infinity) all the galaxies there should move at low velocity with reference to each other (local space), however, due to the linearity at some far away space (or different space time) the velocity with reference to our location should be higher than c?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2022 20:19:05
When you say "space" do you mean the entire space - even if it is infinite?
Yes.
Is there any possibility to claim that?
Yes.
"The speed of light is the upper limit to movement through "any local space"?
Not "local" space. Just space in general.
However, nothing around any point can move faster than the speed of light up to the maximal distance (let's call it P1) in this graph.
Distance doesn't matter, so I don't know why you are claiming this.
Now, do you agree that if we jump to that P1 (or n times P1), we should see a very similar linear graph?
Your "P1" doesn't exist on the graph because it doesn't make sense.
Now, do you agree that if we jump to that P1 (or n times P1), we should see a very similar linear graph?
So, why can't we understand that at any point (up to the infinity) all the galaxies there should move at low velocity with reference to each other (local space), however, due to the linearity at some far away space (or different space time) the velocity with reference to our location should be higher than c?
Because that violates special relativity. No two objects can move relative to each other through space faster than light.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 20:36:58
Because that violates special relativity. No two objects can move relative to each other through space faster than light.
OK
We have actually two messages that contradicts each other:
1. Relative velocity -
This is clear. Nothing can move faster than c.
2. Observation:
We clearly observe that the following graph is linear:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Hubble-diagram-or-the-velocity-distance-relation-plot-for-type-Ia-supernovae_fig1_331983227
Due to the symmetric of the Universe don't you agree that it should continue to be linear up to the infinity?
If so - the Observation tells us that at some distance the velocity with reference to our location should be higher than c.
However, I assume that relativity wins.
This issue is clear
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 20:52:56
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
We see that all the galaxies sit very nicely on the linear graph.
However, suddenly at the Virgo cluster (15MPC) we clearly observe severe dispersion in the velocities.
Do you have any idea for the source of this dispersion in the velocities?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2022 21:00:09
Post by: Origin on 28/05/2022 23:38:56
However, suddenly at the Virgo cluster (15MPC) we clearly observe severe dispersion in the velocities.Yes. It takes about 2 minutes to look it up on google.
Do you have any idea for the source of this dispersion in the velocities?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2022 00:17:05
You are, once again, confusing moving through space faster than light with receding faster than light due to spatial expansion. The first one violates special relativity, whereas the second one does not. They are not the same thing.Dave has been doing that since he joined the forum.
Post by: evan_au on 29/05/2022 00:26:03
Quote from: Dave Lev
1. Why can't we ask about the time before the bang? Why do we need to start from that point?A bit of speculation...
We are, by now, fairly familiar with black holes (we now have seen the shadow cast by two of them).
- Matter entering the event horizon is on a 1-way trip into the singularity.
- Once matter has reached the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
The theory that predicts black holes also allows for "White Holes" - but we haven't seen any examples in our galaxy.
- But maybe the Big Bang has some characteristics of a white hole?
- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.
- Once matter has left the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/05/2022 07:05:53
- Matter entering the event horizon is on a 1-way trip into the singularity.
- Once matter has reached the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???
- Once matter has left the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
In my understanding, that is THE most important issue in the entire universe.
The rest of this post was moved onto page 23(!) of another of Dave's threads: "Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe", since it merely repeats previous questions about the structure of galaxies - mod
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2022 10:17:26
Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???OK, it's a fair question.
Imagine I have a doubling machine, if you put a number into it, the machine spits out twice that number.
If I put 3 into it I get 6
I can extrapolative backwards- if the number 10 comes out of the machine, I can say that the number 5 must have gone into it.
If I also have a machine that multiplies by 3 I can do the same sort of thing.
If I see that 21 has come out, I can deduce that the number 7 went into it
But if I have a machine that multiplies by zero I can't do that.
It doesn't matter if I put 3,5,7, or any other number into it, the output is always zero.
So I can't extrapolate backwards from the output to calculate the input.
While the concept of infinity is a bit complicated mathematically, you can see how a "multiply by infinity" machine has the same property; it trashes the input data.
Passing through a singularity multiplies all the measurements by either zero or infinity.
That's why you can't calculate back past it.
That's not the same as extrapolating back to very near the singularity. We can do that quite well.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/05/2022 13:42:11
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:05:53OK, it's a fair question.
Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???
But if I have a machine that multiplies by zero I can't do that.This isn't the case with regards to the SMBH.
It doesn't matter if I put 3,5,7, or any other number into it, the output is always zero.
The input (stars that falls in) is absolutely ZERO. Out of the billions SMBH, we can't detect even one falling star.
However, the output ( the accretion disc) is full with matter and we clearly observe that this matter is ejected outwards.
Therefore, it is not that we can't see the output.
The reality is that we don't see any input while we clearly see the output!
Our scientists estimate that the far away quasar eats about 25 stars per year (or about one star per two weeks):
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-holeSo far they didn't detect even one falling star. Not in this quasar and not in any SMBH in the entire Universe.
"In fact, scientists estimate that, on average, this particular quasar's black hole ingests an amount of mass equivalent to 25 suns every year."
Hence, on average, this particular quasar's black hole ingests an amount of mass equivalent to one sun every two weeks.
We have supper advanced technology.
We can detect stars at the most-distant-galaxy (at a similar distance as this quasar) and even verify their structure.
So, how could it be that after observing that quasar for quite long time, we didn't observe even one tinny star as it falls inwards with amazing fireworks?
Therefore, when we discuss about how the SMBH works and what is not meaningful - it is our obligation to first verify that your understanding (or misunderstanding) is correct or incorrect.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/05/2022 14:26:07
Post by: Halc on 29/05/2022 14:36:58
- But maybe the Big Bang has some characteristics of a white hole?This doesn’t work. A white hole, like a black one, is a massive differene in gravitational potential near a location in space, while BBT describes a flat universe with uniform potential everywhere with minor local variations forming over time.
- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.
It is not. It is a simplified case, applicable only to inertial frames, and applicable only to addition of parallel velocities. The full equation allows addition of velocity vectors in general.QuoteThe formula is as follow:u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)The formula for relative velocity is 100% correct.
Quote
However, don't forget that Einstein had called it the "relative" velocity and not the "real" velocity.In all the subsequent posts you do not define what you mean by 'real' velocity or distance or whatever as is distinct from velocity. So all the twaddle that follows is meaningless.
As Kryptid says, all velocity is by definition relative, and all of it real. So there is no distinction.
Quote
1. What is the distance formula?There no one 'the distance formula'. The one you give works for the change in location for an unaccelerated object. V and T are coordinate system dependent, and thus so is distance. Far galaxies do not recede at constant velocity, so the formula is entirely inappropriate for galaxies except for short durations of time.
Is it:
S = V T
Quote
What is the real distance that B moved away from A at a given time T?Zero of course. A given time T is but a moment, and no change in location can occur at an instant.
If you're asking the distance B moved away from A over a period of time T, it depends on the velocity curve over that time, and the velocity at a given time is coordinate system dependent.
Quote
4. What is the real distance that C moved away from A at a given time TNo. You're adding distances computed in different frames, which is invalid for inertial frames. You know this, but you continue to troll this nonsense.
Is it:
Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') T
Quote
Where is the error in this calculation?Your errors have been pointed out in several posts prior to this one, and yet you ignore it all.
Quote
You [Halc] clearly claim that Cosmological coordinates are not inertial, and the formula is different.I don't know what you think 'real velocity' is, so the question, and others like it, are meaningless.
So, why we can't assume that based on the Cosmological coordinates we get the real velocity?
Quote
His formula tells us that even if the far away object (C) is moving away at real velocity - u (real) - which is higher than the speed of light, the Observer A would still be able to see it as the relative velocity is:You are mixing values from different coordinate systems, which makes all this entirely wrong.
u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
Therefore, we clearly observe galaxies that are moving away at velocities that are greater than c.
Sorry, it isn't a sum of velocities but sum of distances.You are summing inertial distances computed in different inertial frames, which is neglecting the necessary frame transforms. You did not express the distances in cosmic coordinates, but if you did, then you can simply add them like that so long as they are both distances at the same time. Also, remember that these are vector quantities and must use vector addition.
Where is it stated that it isn't allowed to sum distances?
If one is not properly accelerating in one kind of frame (intertial), one is also not accelerating in any other kind of frame (Rindler, Cosmological, rotating, etc) so no objective fact distinguishes the different abstract coordinate system types.QuoteI assume that "Inertial" frames means - relative.That's not what that means. "Inertial" means that the observer is not accelerating.
An inertial frame (1st CS) is a fixed (not changing over time) set of rectilinear coordinates in Minkowskian spacetime that has arbitrary orientation of the axes. It is the property of Minkowskian spacetime that necessitates the Lorentz transforms whenever rotating the axes between frames. I'm sure there's a better definition than that somewhere, but I'm trying to hit the points relevant to this topic.
Cosmic coordinates are not rectilinear, but are absolute. One cannot rotate the coordinates. With proper distance CS (2nd CS), different transforms are used to change the spatial origin from one location to another. With comoving coordinates (3rd CS), even that is not needed.
We can see that in this photo the Boy is relatively bigger than the elephant.We can see that the boy subtends a larger angle in the camera’s field of view. That by no means implies the boy is larger.
[/quote]Let's assume that there are 1001 point in a row in space that are all moving in the same direction.
Each one is moving at 0.9c with reference to the one before.[/quote]An inertial description.
Therefore, there are 1000 segments where in each segment the distance is increasing by 0.9c T.[/quote]No frame specified, so wrong.
Quote
Due to the relatively velocity law, the first one can still observe the last one as their relative velocity must be less than the speed of light.In Minkowskian spacetime, yes. This would be true regardless of the coordinate system used to express distances and speed and such. But you can do this with galaxies and can only see the first one or two, partly because the more distant ones have not always been emitting light, and more importantly, the universe at large scale isn’t Minkowskian.
Quote
I must say that it is very difficult for me to accept the idea that also in this case the real distance between the two ends of this raw (with 1000 segments in between) is increasing at the maximum by only c(almost) * T.In Minkowskian spacetime it is. Your incredulity doesn’t change the mathematics. But it also means that no matter how many dots you add, the furthest one has a maximum distance it can be from you, depending on how long it’s been since the dots have all been together.
As we move further away, the velocity of the galaxies is increasing almost linearity.Yes, it does that both inertial and proper-distance cosmic coordinates. Not so in comoving coordinates, where the (peculiar) velocity of almost any galaxy anywhere is much lower than c, giving them pretty much fixed distance over time. But that distance is comoving distance, not proper distance, so it isn’t measured with say a tape measure.
Quote
However, nothing around any point can move faster than the speed of light up to the maximal distance (let's call it P1) in this graph.Only under inertial coordinates. Under cosmic coordinates, there is no limit to the distance and therefore recession rate of a really distant object. The graph can be extended indefinitely. Under inertial coordinates, the graph necessarily must stop at recession rate c, and all those most distant objects are clustered near that end of the line.
Quote
So, why can't we understand that at any point (up to the infinity)Under inertial coordinates, you can’t go to infinity with the graph. Just around 4300 mpc.
We see that all the galaxies sit very nicely on the linear graph.Yea. Virgo is a large mass that accelerates the galaxies around it. Their peculiar velocities diverge from zero as expected. The graph only shows very nearby galaxies. If you extend it much further (to galaxies not part of the Shapley supercluster), you’ll find the data points much closer to the linear line
However, suddenly at the Virgo cluster (15MPC) we clearly observe severe dispersion in the velocities.
Do you have any idea for the source of this dispersion in the velocities?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2022 14:43:17
The input (stars that falls in) is absolutely ZERO.You have no basis for saying that. We have only been watching then for a few decades. Cosmology happens ofver a timescale of thousands or millions of years.
And, of course, you are wrong.
We do have pictures of things falling into black holes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
This has been pointed out to you before.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/05/2022 16:29:49
This thread is starting to look more and more like your Theory D thread. That's a problem because it would count as an evasion of the closing of the original thread. Let's not do that.Dear Kryptid
You gave me the permission to take out the BBT filter:
The Idea that the SMBH eats stars is a key element in the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 06:07:46You can, but so far the Big Bang theory is still the best candidate for explaining the observations.
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
If you don't give me the permission to discuss about the SMBH, how can I offer better candidate for explaining the observations.
Please try to forget the Theory D.
We discuss on real solution for the Universe.
Is it relevant if I'm using now some ideas from BG, some from you, some from Halc some from Theory D and other from Z?
Evan Au started the discussion about the BH.
We are, by now, fairly familiar with black holes (we now have seen the shadow cast by two of them).We know that the BBT is constantly evolve due to new discovery.
So, do you give me the permission to evolve my ideas and discuss about BH or not?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/05/2022 17:34:09
Dear Kryptid
You gave me the permission to take out the BBT filter:
I didn't give you permission to promote the same falsehoods that you talked about so much in your Theory D thread.
The Idea that the SMBH eats stars is a key element in the BBT.
If you don't give me the permission to discuss about the SMBH, how can I offer better candidate for explaining the observations.
Please try to forget the Theory D.
We discuss on real solution for the Universe.
Is it relevant if I'm using now some ideas from BG, some from you, some from Halc some from Theory D and other from Z?
Evan Au started the discussion about the BH.
See? You've been talking about the same things in this thread (galaxies moving faster than light, super massive black holes emitting matter instead of ingesting it) as you were in your other thread. You are well on your way to turning this into a duplicate of a closed thread, which is against the rules. I'm considering closing it for that reason. Just because you aren't calling it Theory D doesn't mean you aren't saying mostly the same things.
So, do you give me the permission to evolve my ideas and discuss about BH or not?
If you can do so without saying the same things you did in your other threads, yes. If you are just going to repeat statements that have been debunked numerous times in your closed thread, then I'd say not. I'm now wondering if we can even responsibly allow you to reply to threads about the Big Bang theory because it always seems to come back to this.
Post by: Origin on 29/05/2022 19:10:23
The Idea that the SMBH eats stars is a key element in the BBT.No it isn't. Where do you come up with this junk?
Post by: evan_au on 29/05/2022 22:15:29
Quote from: Halc
A white hole, like a black one, is a massive difference in gravitational potential near a location in space, while BBT describes a flat universe with uniform potential everywhere with minor local variations forming over time.Continuing this slight sideline of a speculation within a New Theory thread...
I agree that:
- A black hole in a galaxy produces a massive difference in gravitational potential near a location in space
- A white hole in a galaxy would produce a massive difference in gravitational potential near a location in space (only we haven't seen any, yet)
I agree that the BBT describes a flat universe with uniform potential everywhere with minor local variations forming over time
- If the Big Bang singularity were not a point in space, but represented all of spacetime, then this objection would not apply: Within that spacetime, it could be "a flat universe with uniform potential everywhere with minor local variations forming over time"
- The same is true if a white hole singularity represented all of spacetime
Note that the Big Bang itself represents a rapidly changing gravitational potential over time, which is why some cosmologists are hoping to detect relic gravitational waves, with frequencies that I found surprisingly high (1010 Hz)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Gravitational_wave_astronomy
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/06/2022 13:45:20
Quote from: Halc
A white hole, like a black one, is a massive difference in gravitational potential near a location in space, while BBT describes a flat universe with uniform potential everywhere with minor local variations forming over time.What about the impact of the Dark matter on the difference in gravitational potential in the galaxy?
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-dark-conspiracy.html
It is stated:
"The speeds of stars on circular orbits have been measured around both spiral and elliptical galaxies. Without dark matter, the speeds should decrease with distance from the galaxy, at different rates for the two galaxy types. Instead, the dark matter appears to conspire to keep the speeds steady"
In order to verify if that request is feasible, let's understand how the "Orbit Speed Inside and Outside a Mass Distribution" really works:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/Keporb.html#c1
In this example they are using a sphere (with radius R) which has a uniform density of matter (or dark matter).
They have found that:
1. Inside the mass distribution the orbital velocity is as follow:
Vorbit = VR * r / R
2. Outside the mass distribution the orbital velocity is ac follow:
Vorbit = VR * √ (R / r)
Therefore, if there was a uniform dark matter around the SMBH, then:
1. Inside the mass distribution the orbital velocity, as we go further away from the center, the orbital velocity should increase linearly by the ratio of:
r/R.
As Vorbit = VR * r / R
2. outside the mass distribution the orbital velocity, as we go further away from the center, the orbital velocity should decrease by the ratio of:
√ (R / r)
As Vorbit = VR * √ (R / r)
That simple explanation proves that the distribution of the dark matter around the SMBH can't be uniform density.
The Sun is located at about 8.5 KPC from the center.
Its orbital velocity is about 220Km/s.
Actually, that is the average orbital velocity of all the stars in the spirals arms - starting from a radius of 3KPC till 15 KPC.
Hence, in order to keep all of those stars in any radius from 3KPC up to 15KPC at the average orbital velocity of about 220Km/s we can't just use uniform density of dark matter.
Hence, please try to answer the following questions:
1. What is the requested formula of dark matter density in the Milky Way that can keep a constant orbital velocity in the spiral disc (from 3KPC to 15 KPC?
2. Why the dark matter can't keep the same orbital velocity in the Bulge and in the Bar (0 KPC to 3KPC)?
Do you agree that between 0KPC to 3KPC the formula of the dark matter density must be different from that in 3KPC to 15KPC?
3. Up to what radius R the dark matter exists? Why it doesn't go all the way to the infinity?
4. How that special dark matter density could be formed at so different densities/formulas for different radiuses around the Milky Way' SMBH?
5. What kind of force could set those special dark matter densities at any different radius/sphere?
Post by: Origin on 17/06/2022 14:20:22
1. What is the requested formula of dark matter density in the Milky Way that can keep a constant orbital velocity in the spiral disc (from 3KPC to 15 KPC?From Wiki:
A commonly used model for galactic dark matter halos is the pseudo-isothermal halo:[17]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f96d3ce3d55e89931179794334ed6f4d2c24a2e8)
2. Why the dark matter can't keep the same orbital velocity in the Bulge and in the Bar (0 KPC to 3KPC)?I am not sure what your question is.
Do you agree that between 0KPC to 3KPC the formula of the dark matter density must be different from that in 3KPC to 15KPC?No.
3. Up to what radius R the dark matter exists? Why it doesn't go all the way to the infinity?The radius is about 100 to 200 kpc. I am going to ignore the infinity question.
How that special dark matter density could be formed at so different densities/formulas for different radiuses around the Milky Way' SMBH?Because dark matter does not 'clump' like regular matter.
5. What kind of force could set those special dark matter densities at any different radius/sphere?Gravity.
Post by: Deecart on 17/06/2022 20:21:25
Quote
5. What kind of force could set those special dark matter densities at any different radius/sphere?
Gravity.
But in my opinion we should before understand how gravity work.
The problem is that we have only some theorical understanding of gravitation, and the observation do not match exactly with the theory. (Per example the Mond theory could be more relevant for big distance or we have to suppose there is some "dark matter" somewhere).
First, there is often a misunderstanding (i suppose not all scientists do the confusion) between the gravitational wave and the gravity field.
The gravitationnal wave is known to travel at light speed (we have received almost simulaneously gravitational waves and light waves coming from some collapsing black holes).
But the gravitationnal wave have no gravitational effect on things they encounter.
They only shortly and temporaly change the length of those things.
So, what about the gravitational field (the one that is curving the space-time) ?
Do the field really expand at light speed ?
Do the field really have the intensity it should have (1/d*d) at some distance d ?
Perhaps this is thrue for short distances (the solar system scale can be considered as a short distance) and false when the distance become bigger.
In my opinion we can not have a law that say the intensity of gravity field is 1/(d*d).
This would contradict (i will not try to develop this idea here because it need a lot of explaination) the energy conservation law (if any).
Therefore i am very puzzled when i see some universe simulation showing that with the actual knowledge we end up with the universe we have actualy (so the simulation show the BB theory and so on is very accurate).
Now, why are there some galaxy with big BH at the begining of the BB ?
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the gravity question.
It has something to do with the interpretation of what we see in the universe.
We have an observation and we have an interpretation of it.
But is the interpretation right ?
Post by: Origin on 17/06/2022 21:26:40
In my opinion we can not have a law that say the intensity of gravity field is 1/(d*d).It seems that the 1/r^2 law for gravity makes perfect sense, as it directly follows from the geometry of a point source.
This would contradict (i will not try to develop this idea here because it need a lot of explaination) the energy conservation law (if any).
Why would this contradict the conservation of energy?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/06/2022 21:28:06
Thanks for the formula.1. What is the requested formula of dark matter density in the Milky Way that can keep a constant orbital velocity in the spiral disc (from 3KPC to 15 KPC?From Wiki:
A commonly used model for galactic dark matter halos is the pseudo-isothermal halo:[17]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f96d3ce3d55e89931179794334ed6f4d2c24a2e8)
However, don't you agree that it is quite complicated formula?
If we would have to help the galaxy to calculate the requested density for each radius, don't you agree that we have to use a computer to extract the correct dark matter density for any given radius/sphere?
So, how the galaxy could calculate the dispersion of the dark matter density at any radius/sphere based on this formula without using any sort of computer?
Even if the galaxy could use a sophisticated computer for extracting the specific density per radius. How the gravity could help the galaxy to set the correct dispersion of that dark matter all over the galaxy?
You claim that:
Because dark matter does not 'clump' like regular matter.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:45:20Gravity.
5. What kind of force could set those special dark matter densities at any different radius/sphere?
How could it be that the gravity can't clump the dark matter, while the dark matter can clump a regular matter by gravity?
In any case, as the dark matter doesn't clamp by gravity, then how the galaxy could set the correct dark matter density at any given radius by gravity while there is no possibility to move the dark matter or clamp it?
Don't forget that any galaxy is evolving over time.
Therefore, there must be a change in the size/mass of the galaxy over time.
As the galaxy changes its size and mass, then there must also be a change in the dark matter density per a given radius.
So, how the galaxy could change the density of the dark matter over time as it evolves while the dark matter doesn't clamp or move by gravity?
Sorry, you have a sever mistake.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:45:20No.
Do you agree that between 0KPC to 3KPC the formula of the dark matter density must be different from that in 3KPC to 15KPC?
Please look at the following diagram:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
Don't you see that from 0KPC to 3KPC the orbital velocity is increasing quite dramatically up to 220 Km/s?
While from 3 KPC and upwards it is quite stable on this 220Km/s.
Therefore, how the same density formula could work at those two different segments?
The radius is about 100 to 200 kpc. I am going to ignore the infinity question.Why the dark matter is concentrated at the galaxy up to that radius?
Why there is no dark matter outside the galaxy?
How the dark matter had been created?
If the galaxy increases its mass/size over time, from where the new dark matter is coming?
If the galaxy decreases its mass/size over time, to where the extra dark matter is ejected or eliminated?
Don't you agree that it is almost impossible mission for the galaxy to calculate the exact dark matter density per radius/sphere, then to set the correct density at the correct radius and finely manage the requested changes in the dark matter density as the galaxy changes its mass/size over time?
There is also an issue with the thickness of the spiral disk.
At 3KPC the thickness of the disc is 3,000 LY, while at the edge of the spiral disk - 15KPC the thickness is 400 LY
This is not correlated to the expectation.
Let's use the Milky Way as an example:
https://www.profmatt.com/ecliptic
It is stated:
"The planets do not all orbit in the same plane as each other: the solar system is not flat"
We clearly see that "the orbital plane of Pluto’s orbit is very different from that of the eight planets"
However, even if it has exactly the same pitch as Neptune, it must go at higher distance from the orbital disc due to its longest radius.
Therefore, it is expected that as the star is located further away from the center, its distance from the disc should be higher.
As this isn't the case in the spiral arms, don't you agree that it proves that the orbital motion of the stars in the galactic disc works on a different mechanism.
Conclusion:
Why can't we just assume that the idea of the dark matter proves that our scientists don't really understand how the spiral galaxy really works?
Post by: Origin on 17/06/2022 21:29:02
Now, why are there some galaxy with big BH at the begining of the BB ?There aren't any, so it is not an issue.
Post by: Origin on 17/06/2022 21:47:04
However, don't you agree that it is quite complicated formula?No it is not.
If we would have to help the galaxy to calculate the requested density for each radius, don't you agree that we have to use a computer to extract the correct dark matter density for any given radius/sphere?The galaxy doesn't calculate anything, what an odd thing to say. You don't need a computer to calculate this.
So, how the galaxy could calculate the dispersion of the dark matter density at any radius/sphere based on this formula without using any sort of computer?What are you talking about?? Do you think the galaxy is sentient?
How could it be that the gravity can't clump the dark matter, while the dark matter can clump a regular matter by gravity?What are you talking about? 'Normal' matter clumps, that is it interact electrostatically to make dust, rocks, planets, etc. Dark matter does not, it appears to stay as individual, particles that do not in general interact.
"The planets do not all orbit in the same plane as each other: the solar system is not flat"No that does not logically follow. It's apples and oranges.
We clearly see that "the orbital plane of Pluto’s orbit is very different from that of the eight planets"
However, even if it has exactly the same pitch as Neptune, it must go at higher distance from the orbital disc due to its longest radius.
Therefore, it is expected that as the star is located further away from the center, its distance from the disc should be higher.
Post by: Origin on 17/06/2022 21:50:03
Conclusion:Your conclusion is based on ignorance, so it can easily be dismissed.
Why can't we just assume that the idea of the dark matter proves that our scientists don't really understand how the spiral galaxy really works?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/06/2022 22:16:43
How could it be that the gravity can't clump the dark matter, while the dark matter can clump a regular matter by gravity?
In principle, if you waited long enough, it possibly could. The issue here is that it, so far as we know, only interacts via the gravitational force. That greatly limits the way that dark matter particles can shed energy. Normal matter interacts via both gravity and the electromagnetic force. If you have a cloud of atoms, they can shed energy by releasing electromagnetic radiation. This causes the cloud to cool off and contract over time, until it forms a star or planet or whatever. Gravity, which is far, far weaker than electromagnetism, would not allow a cloud of dark matter to cool off and contract nearly so quickly. So you still have a cloud of dark matter long after a cloud of normal matter has already contracted into stellar or planetary bodies.
Post by: Deecart on 17/06/2022 23:57:50
It seems that the 1/r^2 law for gravity makes perfect sense, as it directly follows from the geometry of a point source.
Why would this contradict the conservation of energy?
It is complicated to explain shortly, but i will try my best.
So yes, you are right. If the gravity field would behaviour like the electromagnetic field you should have a 1/d^2 law for the gravitational field.
But first you need to really understand why there can be a 1/d^2 law in the intensity at some distant point for the electromagnetic field.
Lets begin with a source of photons that emit only 1 single photon.
This photon start form the point source and then advance toward infinity.
There is a problem if you want to receive this single photon, especialy if you are at a very long distance because if you consider the photon will spread as a cylinder (like a laser beam would do), the 1/d^2 law intensity would not apply everytime.
By chance, the photon spread as a cone, and you can intercept it much easyer.
So a single photon at a distance d can be received within a large surface onto the sphere wich has the radius d.
Whats the intensity law for this single photon ?
1/d^2 ? No, if you get the photon that is actualy present (because the duality particle wave) you got the full energy of this photon.And very important, if you get the photon within this surface, the photon disappear instantly (so far as we know) preventing anyone to receive the photon at the same time at an other position (the wave function is destroyed).
Now, if you consider a source that emit a tremedous quantity of photons, every second, like a star would do, the intensity of the source can be seen as if it would be distributed onto the surface of a sphere of radius d.
You can divide the intensity by d*d because you are in fact dividing the number of the photons you can intercept on the surface of the sphere.You are not dividing the intensity of the photon (you can not it is a particle), but their number.
It seems obvious at first, but there is something very interresting you need to understand there : As soon as you have interacted with the photon, it stop his travel and disappear and before you interact with it, it is like it is not here (it does nothing).
So : The intensity 1/d^2 can be obtained because of the large number of photons (they are well repartited) BUT you can ONLY obtain this intensity 1 time.
The maximum you can do is receiving all photons emited and you will have the same intensity as that of the star.
Saying you have a pulse of light (it is better to understand) 1/d^2 is proportional with the surface d^d of the sphere of radius d. Here we dont have a problem with the energy.
Now, if you consider the gravitational field.
Let assume we have, like for the electromagnetic field, "something" that is spreading from the source (the same star as before per example). We dont need really, for the explaination here, to know what this "something" is (some graviton or whatever). But what we know, and it is was distinguish the behaviour of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field; is that the photon is VIRTUAL (it exists virtualy in the space and has no effect unlike you receive it, and if it interact it disapear) and that the "something" who is responsible for the curvature of space-time is ACTUAL (it has a PERMANENT and real effect, everywhere where it travel).
Therefore, if you consider that it can curve the space-time (and this can be assimilated as some local energy change) everywhere he pass by, you will understand that you could theoritically do the sum of the energy change of the spheres with radius between 0 and the infinity.
Because the "graviton" or whatever it is, change actually the curvature of space-time, this would lead to an infinite energy gain because the radius will become bigger an bigger.
An if you want to interact with it like the photon, it must occupy a large amount of space, bigger and bigger as you go away from the source.
The photon can because it only occupy space without interact with it, but the "graviton" can not (or it is some big mystery) because it is actualy changing the curvature within the space-bigger and bigger it occupy. .
Therefore, my opinion is : The best, and i will finish briefly here, is to consider the "graviton" (or whatever it is) like some fluid that is occupying the area around the star.
The intensity of the fluid production is extremly strong, so the filling around the star is "like if" the "fluid balloon" extend around speed of light, but soon you go further, and because of the constant (proportional to mass) production of this fluid the "balloon" growing rate decrease.
The intensity around the star is proportional to 1/d^2 but soon you go further away the density of this fluid become less than 1/d^2... until some time when the area is well filled and so forth.
More interresting, with this model, you dont only say : What is the intensity of the gravitational field at distance d, but you also need to say WHEN do i consider this intensity..
Older structures, like for the galaxys, have more of this "fluid" then young galaxys.
And when the star is loosing mass... the gravitational effect remain somewhere.
Post by: Eternal Student on 18/06/2022 01:15:08
I think I got the gist of what you were trying to say.
This is the bit that seems to contain the problem:
Therefore, if you consider that it can curve the space-time (and this can be assimilated as some local energy change) everywhere he pass by, you will understand that you could theoritically do the sum of the energy change of the spheres with radius between 0 and the infinity.There isn't any reason to consider the curvature of spacetime as a store of energy.
Under General Relativity, spacetime curvature is a consequence of energy being located at a place in space. It is not a form of energy or a store of energy. For example, there is no process or piece of equipment that will allow you to straighten out spacetime curvature and charge a battery up while you are doing that. If there was some process to convert spacetime curvature into another known form of energy then you could have one increase while the other decreases - but that doesn't happen. Exactly the opposite seems to happen: Increase the total energy of known forms at a place and the curvature also increases at that place.
Best Wishes.
Post by: Origin on 18/06/2022 01:58:33
But first you need to really understand why there can be a 1/d^2 law in the intensity at some distant point for the electromagnetic field.None of this has anything to do with the 1/r^2 relation ship because you are talking about 1 photon. As I said before the relationship is due to the geometry of a point source.
Lets begin with a source of photons that emit only 1 single photon.
This photon start form the point source and then advance toward infinity.
There is a problem if you want to receive this single photon, especialy if you are at a very long distance because if you consider the photon will spread as a cylinder (like a laser beam would do), the 1/d^2 law intensity would not apply everytime.
By chance, the photon spread as a cone, and you can intercept it much easyer.
So a single photon at a distance d can be received within a large surface onto the sphere wich has the radius d.
Whats the intensity law for this single photon ?
1/d^2 ? No, if you get the photon that is actualy present (because the duality particle wave) you got the full energy of this photon.And very important, if you get the photon within this surface, the photon disappear instantly (so far as we know) preventing anyone to receive the photon at the same time at an other position (the wave function is destroyed).
Now, if you consider a source that emit a tremedous quantity of photons, every second, like a star would do, the intensity of the source can be seen as if it would be distributed onto the surface of a sphere of radius d.And the intensity (or number of photons) follows 1/r^2 relationship.
You can divide the intensity by d*d because you are in fact dividing the number of the photons you can intercept on the surface of the sphere. You are not dividing the intensity of the photon (you can not it is a particle), but their number.
But what we know, and it is was distinguish the behaviour of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field; is that the photon is VIRTUALThere is a huge difference between a photon and a virtual photon. Photons emitted by stars are not virtual photons.
The energy aspect was rather succinctly addressed by eternal student.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/06/2022 06:13:19
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:28:06No it is not.
However, don't you agree that it is quite complicated formula?
Please try to answer the following:
1. Dark matter radius -
Why the radius of the dark matter is about 100 to 200 kpc?
Sorry, I still don't understand how gravity could set the dark matter so perfectly according to the requested formula up to that distance.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 13:45:20The radius is about 100 to 200 kpc
Up to what radius R the dark matter exists? Why it doesn't go all the way to the infinity?
The galaxy doesn't calculate anything, what an odd thing to say. You don't need a computer to calculate this.So how the gravity knows the exact requested density at any radius for any sort of galaxy and also to update the density of the dark matter as the galaxy evolves and change its size/mass over time?
Are you sure that the gravity by itself can do the job of the distribution of dark matter without any external help?
If the gravity can do this job so easily, why it stops at 200KPC? Why not up to 1MPC and above?
2. Orbital velocity.
You didn't answer my following question:
Please look at the following diagram:So please look again in the following diagram and try to explain why from 3KPC to 0KPC the orbital velocity of stars falls down so dramatically?
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
Don't you see that from 0KPC to 3KPC the orbital velocity is increasing quite dramatically up to 220 Km/s?
While from 3 KPC and upwards it is quite stable on this 220Km/s.
Therefore, how the same density formula could work at those two segments so differently?
Why the formula that you have offered can't keep the orbital velocity of 220KPC also for the section of below 3KPC?
Why the dark matter has an impact ONLY on the stars in the spiral disc from 3KPC and above?
3. Bulge (0 - 1KPC) - Why in the bulge each star orbits at different direction and orbital plane?
Why the Dark matter can't force the stars in the bulge to orbit in a disc?
4. Bar (1KPC to 3KPC) - How the dark matter could form the unique structure of the Bar?
5. Ring (3KPC)- Why the ring is always located at the base of spiral arms?
How the dark matter could force/convince billions of stars at that range to move suddenly in one direction and in the same plane/disc and form the ring shape?
Why the ring in all the billions spiral galaxies is always located at the base of the galactic disc?
How the dark matter formula could justify the existence of the ring exactly at the base of the spiral disc (not in the middle and not at the edge)?
6. Spiral disc - As you claim that the dark matter exists up to about 200KLY, how could it be that the spiral disc plan breaks down at about 50KLY?
Why the disc doesn't continue all the way to 200KLY?
7. Thickness of the spiral disc
Sorry, I still don't understand how the dark matter with its formula can set any sort of disc and especially its thickness:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:28:06No that does not logically follow. It's apples and oranges.
"The planets do not all orbit in the same plane as each other: the solar system is not flat"
We clearly see that "the orbital plane of Pluto’s orbit is very different from that of the eight planets"
However, even if it has exactly the same pitch as Neptune, it must go at higher distance from the orbital disc due to its longest radius.
Therefore, it is expected that as the star is located further away from the center, its distance from the disc should be higher.
a. No disc at the Bulge up to 1KPC
b. Some sort of a disc starts at the Bar 1KPC to 3KPC
b. About 3000LY at the base of the disc/ring at 3KPC
c. About 1,000 LY at 8.5KPC
d. Only 400LY at the edge of the disc (15KPC)
c. No disc after that edge
Post by: Deecart on 18/06/2022 10:00:29
Quote from: Eternal Student
There isn't any reason to consider the curvature of spacetime as a store of energy.
Under General Relativity, spacetime curvature is a consequence of energy being located at a place in space.
I agree.
Quote
It is not a form of energy or a store of energy.
You just sayed that spacetime curvature is a consequence of energy being located at a place and then you say that there is no energy needed to create this curvature ?
This is a total paradox.
You state that graviton (or whatever it is, black matter perhaps) do not contain energy but because of its energy it will permanently curve the spacetime while going around without loosing any energy.
But you are perhaps right and GR say this kind of thing, i am not a specialist.
Quote
For example, there is no process or piece of equipment that will allow you to straighten out spacetime curvature and charge a battery up while you are doing that. If there was some process to convert spacetime curvature into another known form of energy then you could have one increase while the other decreases - but that doesn't happen. Exactly the opposite seems to happen: Increase the total energy of known forms at a place and the curvature also increases at that place.Of course there is.
There is a force wich appears, capable of pulling some mass toward an other, so you can have movement at the place where there was no movement at all before the action of the gravitational field. Therefore you create Work. Work is the transfert of energy.
Post by: evan_au on 18/06/2022 10:40:41
Quote from: Deecart
Lets begin with a source of photons that emit only 1 single photon.... the 1/d^2 law intensity would not apply everytime.A wavefunction can also be considered to generate a probability.
- If you completely surround a single-photon source with perfect detectors, there is a 100% chance that you will detect the photon at far distance d.
- But if you use a detector with an area of only 1 m2, the probability of detection at distance d is much smaller: call it p1=1/4πd2
- Since 4πd2 m2 is the surface area of a sphere, if d is measured in meters
- Now if you move your 1 m2 detector twice as far away (2d), the probability that you will detect it has dropped to 25%
p2 = 1/4π(2d)2 = p1/4
So the inverse square law for radiation still holds for a single photon; the probability of detecting 1 photon can become arbitrarily low if you make your detector smaller, or put it farther away from the source.
Post by: evan_au on 18/06/2022 10:57:54
Quote from: Dave Lev
we would have to help the galaxy to calculate the requested density for each radius,I think you have this equation backwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo#Density_profiles
- The equation for the density of Dark Matter in a galaxy is an empirical model that tries to explain the observed rotation curve of different galaxies.
- It is not a formula that each galaxy "tries" to follow
- You will notice that there are a number of parameters in the equation, that will take different values for different galaxies
There are a number of galaxies that have been observed with almost no Dark Matter, so the density of stars does seem to explain the rotation curve
- These galaxies appear to have formed from the collision of two gas-rich "normal" galaxies
- The gas clouds collided with each other, forming stars
- But the Dark Matter seems to have continued on its original trajectory, leaving behind a bunch of stars with little or no Dark Matter
The Bullet Cluster is one example where the collision was fairly recent, so the Dark Matter is still relatively close to the collision debris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
Post by: Deecart on 18/06/2022 11:43:09
Quote from: Origin
There is a huge difference between a photon and a virtual photon. Photons emitted by stars are not virtual photons.
I dont speak about what we name in physic "virtual photons", i say that the photon, by essence, is a quantic particle that expand in the space within some volume BUT if until you interact with it, the photon is like if there was nothing.
The only moment when you know THERE WAS a photon, is when you have destroyed it. So it is VIRTUAL.
The action of the photon (he give his energy) is localised exactly WHERE you interact with it altought it occupy a bigger volume.
Quote from: Origin
None of this has anything to do with the 1/r^2 relation ship because you are talking about 1 photon. As I said before the relationship is due to the geometry of a point source.
And the intensity (or number of photons) follows 1/r^2 relationship.
Ok, i see you dident understand what i tried to explain.
I do not blame you because i was thinking like you 3 months ago, before i finaly understood that i was tricked by the mathematical aspect of the 1/r^2 relationship and dident try to understand enought the physicaly phenomenon behind this law.
So, no problem, lets try some other explaination that can eventualy permit you to gain some new insight you can develop by yourself.
First we have to be aware that we dont really know the phenomenon underlying the gravity field.
The GR theory is some mathematical description like the SR theory but we dont really know the detail that lead to the fact we are describing.
Newton was a mathematician too and his law is based on mathematical tought guided by some mystical tought (Newton was also an alchemist).
So, are there some gravitons ? Some paquets of curved space, dark matter, "something" ? etc
SR and GR dont care and you have to guess.
Now, lets try some "GedankenExperiment" to see clearer.
Let us Imagine a massive object apppearing suddenly in some flat space.
Lets say there is something in the space toward infinity around this mass that can interact with light, some very dense fog of some kind.
When "light", or better said "a photon" hit a fog particle, it disappear.
The disappearance has to be regarded as some transformation (or LOSS if we consider it as a part of the total emited energy by the mass in term of photons) of the energy emited by the mass.
Because energy if we want to do physic should be something that should remain (this is some principia, like Newton could have say using his mystical tought) we can also, like Eternal Student dit, talk about transformation and not of loss. But it is the same, it just depend wich system we consider (the total or the part of).
So, what would we see as an external observator when the photons are emited during time ?
I will not explain this because this is very obvious and we can (and if i would so i dont want to talk so long about, my messages are already very long) do many interesting conclusions in the ways the photons will spread among space.
Now, let change and say the photons are now instead some "gravitational field particle" (GFP), that the mass is emitting like previously we did with the photon at the same constant flux rate, and that the fog is "the not curvatured spacetime".
The curvatured spacetime will not interact anymore with the GFP etc.
Good, you say, we have some similar behavior.
Wrong... because the theory (i dont say the theory is right...) say that the expansion of the gravitational field can not be shielded (mass dont hinder the propagation) nor be lowered because its meet some not curvatured space.
Therefore there is some questioning about WHY the GFP should behavior differently of the photon and be able to curve spacetime without not being "discarded" ("loss" of energy of the total emitted energy of the mass).
If you consider the energy you can use to curve the spacetime from GFP at some position d, behavior like those of the photon (... without the fog) you are not consistent.
This is why i mentionned this because it confirm the questioning of Dave Lev.
Why should there be some new law for the Gravitational force that matches the equilibrum of the galaxys and so forth ?
No, you can have this behavior if you consider that there is something (GFP) emited that (like the photon in the fog) disapear when it bends spacetime.
Therefore the impossibility to have a 1/d^2 law, unless there is "no fog" (already some curvature at the same value of the flux).
The energy by surface you can obtain from a constant emitted source of photon into some fog at some distance is not a fixed value. It depends of the anihilation of the fog, so it change during time when the fog progressivly disapear.
I hope it is more clear with this explaination.
Post by: Deecart on 18/06/2022 12:57:42
Quote from: evan_au
A wavefunction can also be considered to generate a probability.
- If you completely surround a single-photon source with perfect detectors, there is a 100% chance that you will detect the photon at far distance d.
- But if you use a detector with an area of only 1 m2, the probability of detection at distance d is much smaller: call it p1=1/4πd2
- Since 4πd2 m2 is the surface area of a sphere, if d is measured in meters
- Now if you move your 1 m2 detector twice as far away (2d), the probability that you will detect it has dropped to 25%
p2 = 1/4π(2d)2 = p1/4
So the inverse square law for radiation still holds for a single photon; the probability of detecting 1 photon can become arbitrarily low if you make your detector smaller, or put it farther away from the source.
I totaly agree with your demonstration.
I just dont give the exact value , so i do not use the Pi or other constants, because this can be discarded when we speak in term of proportionality.
If you want to be very precise the only thing is that you consider that you dont know where the photon will strike.
This is somewhat wrong when you consider some big source of photon.
For a single atom emiting a photon i admit we know it can strike everywhere around the atome.
But for some spherical clusters of atoms, the atome can only be emited in the opposite direction of the cluster starting from his surface, with some angle around the vertical of the surface of the sphere (or it will be absorbed by the cluster shortly after it has been emited).
But why did i speak of this phenomenon ?
Because it can help you to understand that the mathematical point of view permit to consider infinitesimal volumes of space you can add or divide as you want, but in reality the photon, like perhaps the GFP (or not and this is some interresting question) need to be considered as "something" that CANT be divided.
The statistical value (a mathematical consideration) can not be considered to be like the real phenomenon,
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/06/2022 21:06:07
I think you have this equation backwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo#Density_profilesThanks for your honest and clear explanation
- The equation for the density of Dark Matter in a galaxy is an empirical model that tries to explain the observed rotation curve of different galaxies.
- It is not a formula that each galaxy "tries" to follow
- You will notice that there are a number of parameters in the equation, that will take different values for different galaxies
So the idea is that when we can't explain the observed rotation curve by the ordinary matter, we can ask for a special dark matter for help.
For each galaxy we might need different dark matter density, different quantity, and different size of an impact - but as the dark matter comes free of charge we can ask it to fit to any formula which we need.
We only need to write the requested formula of dark matter density for each galaxy - and we get a perfect fit.
However, that fit at its maximal contribution can only explain the observed rotation curve at the galactic disc of spiral arm.
I hope that by now we agree that the dark matter can't explain the following questions:
1. How the disc had been formed exactly from the ring (3KPC) till the edge of the spiral arms ( 15KPC)?
2. Why the dark matter has no impact on the bulge or the Bar (up to 3KPC)?
3. Why the disc breaks down at 50,000 Ly while the dark matter is there up to at least 100,000 LY?
4. How could it be that the thickness of the disc is maximal in the base (3KPC) and minimal at the edge (15KPC)
And many other questions...
There are a number of galaxies that have been observed with almost no Dark Matter, so the density of stars does seem to explain the rotation curveHow can we accept the idea that in some galaxies there is dark matter while in the other there is no dark matter?
- These galaxies appear to have formed from the collision of two gas-rich "normal" galaxies
- The gas clouds collided with each other, forming stars
- But the Dark Matter seems to have continued on its original trajectory, leaving behind a bunch of stars with little or no Dark Matter
Dark matter is not something that we can order based on special delivery.
You have to take a decision.
If there is dark matter - then it must exist in any galaxy in the entire Universe.
If there is even one galaxy in the entire universe where the density of stars does seem to explain the rotation curve, then there is no dark matter in any other galaxy.
Actually, if the dark matter exists at any galaxy and as there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies - why there is no dark matter also outside the galaxies in the entire Universe?
How long do we need to wait?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:28:06In principle, if you waited long enough, it possibly could.
How could it be that the gravity can't clump the dark matter, while the dark matter can clump a regular matter by gravity?
The age of the Milky Way is estimated for more than 12 BY. So why the dark matter in our galaxy didn't clump yet?
The issue here is that it, so far as we know, only interacts via the gravitational force.Well, can we claim that as we don't know how the ordinary matter can explain the activity in the spiral galaxy, we have decided that we need some support for extra gravity? Therefore, can we agree that as we have decided that there is a need something that we can't see, can't smell and can't feel, let's call it dark matter and claim that it can only contribute extra gravity?
That greatly limits the way that dark matter particles can shed energy.Did we even found even one particle of dark matter?
Do we really know how the gravity could spread the dark matter particles in the galaxy so it would fit to the requested formula?
As the dark matter is up to 100,000 LY it is very clear that the solar system and the Earth should constantly collide with dark matter particles as they orbit around the galaxy. So why we can't see a rain of dark matter particles falling on our heads?
If you think that the solar system is not big enough, then what about the spiral arms or ring? The thickness of the ring is 3,000 LY.
Don't you agree that it is quite massive object that should collide with the dark matter - if there was any dark matter?
Normal matter interacts via both gravity and the electromagnetic force. If you have a cloud of atoms, they can shed energy by releasing electromagnetic radiation. This causes the cloud to cool off and contract over time, until it forms a star or planet or whatever.If the dark matter can't shed its energy, then why do we ignore its impact?
As the total mass of the dark matter is at least 5 times bigger than the ordinary matter, why we can't assume that some of the cosmic energy is due to dark matter/energy?
So you still have a cloud of dark matter long after a cloud of normal matter has already contracted into stellar or planetary bodies.If the galaxy with its ordinary matter/stars is changing much faster than the dark matter, then then how the dark matter can fit itself to changes in the galaxy?
Do you agree that if in the past the dark matter was OK for the Milky way, then as the galaxy had been surly changed in the last billions years - then the old dark matter density (that can't change fast enough) can't fit anymore to the current milky way?
However, the Milky Way is stable with or without the changes in the dark matter.
In other words - why can't we just agree that our scientists have invented the idea of dark matter as they have no clue how spiral galaxy can work only based on ordinary matter?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/06/2022 21:16:28
So the idea is that when we can't explain the observed rotation curve by the ordinary matter, we can ask for a special dark matter for help.No.
We MUST ask for something else, and we call it dark matter.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/06/2022 04:57:14
How long do we need to wait?
I don't know, as I haven't looked up the numbers. Given that gravity is about 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism, we'd have to wait much, much longer than we would for normal matter to condense.
The age of the Milky Way is estimated for more than 12 BY. So why the dark matter in our galaxy didn't clump yet?
Not enough time has passed yet. Gravitational waves carry away extremely small amounts of energy for all but the most massive objects.
Well, can we claim that as we don't know how the ordinary matter can explain the activity in the spiral galaxy, we have decided that we need some support for extra gravity?
That is what the observations say, yes.
Therefore, can we agree that as we have decided that there is a need something that we can't see, can't smell and can't feel, let's call it dark matter and claim that it can only contribute extra gravity?
That's what the observations suggest, yes.
Did we even found even one particle of dark matter?
Not unambiguously.
Do we really know how the gravity could spread the dark matter particles in the galaxy so it would fit to the requested formula?
What formula are you talking about?
As the dark matter is up to 100,000 LY it is very clear that the solar system and the Earth should constantly collide with dark matter particles as they orbit around the galaxy. So why we can't see a rain of dark matter particles falling on our heads?
Because, as has been stated before, dark matter only seems to interact gravitationally. In order to see something, it has to interact with light in some way. Dark matter is invisible because it doesn't interact with electromagnetism.
If you think that the solar system is not big enough, then what about the spiral arms or ring? The thickness of the ring is 3,000 LY.
That doesn't matter if it only interacts via gravity.
Don't you agree that it is quite massive object that should collide with the dark matter - if there was any dark matter?
No. Dark matter is not tangible. It passes through normal matter as if it wasn't there (similar to neutrinos). That is because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. Normal matter does, that is why normal matter can't pass through other matter in such a ghost-like manner.
If the dark matter can't shed its energy, then why do we ignore its impact?
You mean ignore it physically impacting us? I already answered that above.
As the total mass of the dark matter is at least 5 times bigger than the ordinary matter, why we can't assume that some of the cosmic energy is due to dark matter/energy?
What do you mean by "cosmic energy"?
If the galaxy with its ordinary matter/stars is changing much faster than the dark matter, then then how the dark matter can fit itself to changes in the galaxy?
Who said that it was? It's not like dark matter has to do such a thing.
Do you agree that if in the past the dark matter was OK for the Milky way, then as the galaxy had been surly changed in the last billions years - then the old dark matter density (that can't change fast enough) can't fit anymore to the current milky way?
Over a few billion years, the Milky Way probably hasn't changed a whole lot in terms of its overall shape, honestly.
In other words - why can't we just agree that our scientists have invented the idea of dark matter as they have no clue how spiral galaxy can work only based on ordinary matter?
That's pretty much exactly what dark matter is: a concept invoked to explain anomalies in the observations. That's how a lot of science works.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/06/2022 04:12:36
That's pretty much exactly what dark matter is: a concept invoked to explain anomalies in the observations. That's how a lot of science works.
In order to understand why our scientists need dark matter let me use the following explanation:
1. Spiral arms can't be a rigid structure as they do not rotate as a solid object:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/03/22/astroquizzical-spiral-galaxy-arms/?sh=5380839418c5
"spiral arms are still kind of weird. If the galaxy was a static object, like our circle made of paint, and rotated as a unit, you’d need the spiral arms to have been there from the galaxy’s birth, but once they got there you could keep them fairly easily. Unfortunately, we can see that galaxies don’t rotate as a solid object, like a DVD in a player."
In this case, it is expected that the orbital velocity of stars in the edge of the spiral arm would be much faster than the orbital velocity of the one in the base of the arm.
Therefore - our scientists have concluded that the spiral arm isn't a solid object
2. Winding problem
"So that idea’s out; what next? The stars and gas which are closest to the center of a spiral galaxy rotate faster around the center than the stars at the outskirts. This difference in rotation speeds means, if you give a galaxy a spiral arm pattern and then let the galaxy just exist for a little while, your nice loose spiral arm pattern will wind up into a really tight spiral, and the lack of space between arms will make it hard to even spot them in the first place. So if this scenario is the case, then the strong spiral arm features shouldn’t last long. Again, there are problems; if spiral arms shouldn’t last very long, then in general you wouldn’t expect to see many strong spiral arms if you look out at the galaxy population. And while there are certainly galaxies without distinct spiral arms, there are a lot of galaxies with strong spiral features. We'll have to throw out this idea as well."
Let's stop at this point
Now we all know why our scientists have concluded that the spiral arms can't be a solid structure.
However, they do not disqualify the idea that a star can holds itself to the spiral arms by gravity.
They just claim that if the spiral structure was solid, it just can't work - and they are correct by 100%.
Therefore, they have offered two different theories:
- Dark matter- in order to explain the average orbital velocity of each star at any given location in the spiral arm
- Density wave idea in order to explain the spiral stricture:
"What we are left with is an idea called spiral density wave theory, which suggests that the spiral arms aren’t a physical “thing”, but are made of stars which are simply passing through, more like a traffic jam than anything else. "
It is stated very clearly:
" The apparent spiral arms appear because stars don't orbit the center of the galaxy in perfect circles. Each star is instead on an elliptical orbit, much like the recurrent comets in our solar system. As stars are moving the slowest at the distant edge of their orbit, if a large number of stars have turnaround points around the same place, you'll wind up with an extra dense region of stars, creating an apparent spiral arm. Each star will continue along its own orbit, drifting in and out of spiral arms as the galaxy spins"
Conclusion:
If the solid spiral arm was correct - then we eliminate the need of dark matter, but we end up with winding problem
Therefore, our scientists need two theories - Dark matter and density wave to explain the basic structure of spiral arms
Do you agree with this understanding so far?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/06/2022 04:40:52
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/06/2022 05:09:57
If the solid spiral arm was correct - then we eliminate the need of dark matter, but we end up with winding problem
Therefore, our scientists need two theories - Dark matter and density wave to explain the basic structure of spiral arms
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/06/2022 14:18:22
Density wave theory is not something I am well acquainted with, so I don't know if everything you've said is accurate or not.Dear Krptid
It's not about what I said, it is all about what is stated in the article:
It is stated clearly that they have considered a possibility that the spiral arm is rigid or static object:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/03/22/astroquizzical-spiral-galaxy-arms/?sh=5380839418c5
"If the galaxy was a static object, like our circle made of paint, and rotated as a unit,"
In this case, all the stars are hold together by gravity.
Therefore, there is no need for Dark matter.
Again, they have disqualified this idea not because they think that gravity can't hold stars in the spiral arms, but because of the winding problem.
Therefore, again - do you confirm that based on this article we can understand that stars can hold themselves in the spiral arms by gravity?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/06/2022 19:56:49
One of the most important element in the spiral galaxy is the Bar.
Our scientists are using the dark matter to explain the orbital motion of the stars in the spiral arms (and only in the spiral arms) while they totally ignore the other elements especially - the Bar.
However, if they would understand what is the main functionality of this bar they could understand how the spiral galaxy works as one complex organism.
I have just found an excellent article about the Bar:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
It is stated:
"The bar pulsations result from its regular encounters with the Galactic spiral arms, in what can be described as a “cosmic dance”. As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up.Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is. As the dancers split apart, the bar speeds up while the spiral slows back down."
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
It is also stated: "Once connected, the two structures move as one"
So it is all about gravity that connects the stars in the Bar to those in the spiral arm so they all become one.
Wow!!!
What a great information!!!
I was looking for that information for years.
This is the smoking gun of the spiral galaxy!
Not gravity between dark matter to ordinary matter but gravity between two key elements (Bar and spiral arms) in the spiral galaxy that are all based on ordinary matter as stars.
If our scientists would understand the real meaning of this explanation, they would verify that there is no need for dark matter. The stars (ordinary matter) in each element in the galaxy are good enough to maintain its full structure (Bulge, Bar, Ring, Spiral arms...) without any need for even one particle of dark matter!
Take out one element from that complex and you break down the galaxy.
Nothing would help - not even dark matter.
So, do you accept the idea that in this article they clearly discuss about the impact of real gravity between two key elements in the spiral galaxy (without even one word about the dark matter imagination)?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/06/2022 21:46:47
Don't you agree that here must be a connection between the dark matter and the winding problem?
Maybe, I'm not sure.
Therefore, again - do you confirm that based on this article we can understand that stars can hold themselves in the spiral arms by gravity?
Gravity can't hold things together as if they were solid objects, so I hope that's not what you meant by this question.
So, do you accept the idea that in this article they clearly discuss about the impact of real gravity between two key elements in the spiral galaxy (without even one word about the dark matter imagination)?
Even if dark matter isn't necessary to explain the structure of the spiral arms, it is still necessary to explain the anomalous galactic rotation curve (either that or some version of MOND or some other new theory).
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/06/2022 06:08:16
I hope that the observation is still important for you.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:18:22
Therefore, again - do you confirm that based on this article we can understand that stars can hold themselves in the spiral arms by gravity?
Gravity can't hold things together as if they were solid objects, so I hope that's not what you meant by this question.
So, please would you kindly read again the following?
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is."
What is the meaning of this statement?
Could it be that our scientists observe that the Bar and the spiral arms are connected as one solid object?
If not, then please explain what do you understand from this observation?
If yes, then what kind of force connects the bar and spiral as one solid object?
Let's read the following:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
What is the meaning of: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up"?
Could it be that when our scientists claim that: "their mutual attraction due to gravity" they don't think about gravity?
So please, based on this explanation, what kind of mutual attraction force holds the bar and the spiral arm as one solid object?
Is it dark matter, dark energy, dark glue or just a simple mutual gravity force?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/06/2022 07:21:11
Could it be that our scientists observe that the Bar and the spiral arms are connected as one solid object?
No.
If not, then please explain what do you understand from this observation?
It means that their motions are associated with each other, at least temporarily. To say that two objects bound by gravity is solid is to greatly misrepresent what the word "solid" means. The Solar System travels through the galaxy as a unit, but it absolutely isn't solid.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/06/2022 18:31:45
It means that their motions are associated with each other, at least temporarily. To say that two objects bound by gravity is solid is to greatly misrepresent what the word "solid" means. The Solar System travels through the galaxy as a unit, but it absolutely isn't solid.Thanks
You are absolutely correct.
It can't be solid object.
I fully accept your message that this kind of gravity bonding is temporarily:
"It means that their motions are associated with each other, at least temporarily."
Therefore, do you confirm that:
The Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/06/2022 21:41:32
The Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?
That does seem to be the case.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2022 06:37:23
ThanksThe Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?
That does seem to be the case.
Do appreciate.
Based on this case, do you also confirm that the stars there are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity between all the stars as one temporarily object?
One more question:
Please look at the following orbital velocity diagram:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
Do you have any idea why the orbital velocity of the stars in the bar (Below 3KPC) is increasing linearity as we move further away from the Center?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2022 06:54:27
As for the pattern you speak of below 3 kpc, I don't know the reason for that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2022 07:28:13
As for the pattern you speak of below 3 kpc, I don't know the reason for that.So how our scientists claim that they know how the spiral galaxy works while they don't have a basic clue how he Bar segment works?
Don't you agree that if you explain something, you need to explain its functionality from A to Z?
As an example, if I will try to explain you how a Jumbo jet works.
However, I can only explain one segment of the fly - how the Jet can run on the run way at high velocity.
It works as follow:
We connect the jet to a very speedy dark truck (that we can't see smell or feel) and it can pull the jet at high velocity.
Bravo for the excellent explanation!
However, don't ask me how it could continue to fly in the air as I have no clue how it works.
If you insist, I can also claim that as the dark truck lift itself on the air it also pull the jet in the air.
But please don't ask me how the dark track can lift itself in the air as it is not my job to answer this question.
Exactly in the same token, our scientists try to explain how the spiral galaxy works.
They look on the diagram and see that from 3KPC and upwards (at the spiral segment) the orbital velocity is relatively fix.
Therefore, they have invented a brilliant idea of dark matter that add the extra missing gravity force.
If you ask them how that dark matter gets over there and at that specific requested density - they will tell you that they don't know and it isn't their job to answer this kind of question.
We also understand by now that our scientists don't have a clue why the stars in the Bar accelerate linearly and dramatically to that top level of orbital velocity.
So are you sure that by explaining just one section (spiral galaxy) with something that we don't see and have no clue how it is there exactly in the specific density for each radius and each galaxy - our scientist have accomplished their mission to explain how spiral galaxies really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2022 08:57:47
So how our scientists claim that they know how the spiral galaxy works while they don't have a basic clue how he Bar segment works?You seem to have equated one guy on a web site with the whole of science.
Why is that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2022 13:05:34
So how our scientists claim that they know how the spiral galaxy works while they don't have a basic clue how he Bar segment works?You seem to have equated one guy on a web site with the whole of science.
Why is that?
Well, it's the time for the science community to explain how the spiral galaxy really works.
Not just an explanation for just one segment that is based on some imagination that is called dark matter while we can't see, feel or smell it - but for all the other segments of the spiral arms (especially - the Bar).
If you (or anyone else) know how the Bar works, then please go ahead and share with us the knowledge.
If no one in the whole science community has a basic clue about it - why don't you give me a chance to explain how the entire spiral galaxy really works from A to Z?
Post by: Origin on 22/06/2022 13:57:04
If no one in the whole science community has a basic clue about it - why don't you give me a chance to explain how the entire spiral galaxy really works from A to Z?Because you have demonstrated over and over that you do not know what you are talking about, so it would be a waste of time.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2022 16:48:28
So how our scientists claim that they know how the spiral galaxy works while they don't have a basic clue how he Bar segment works?
You think just because I don't know the answer that literally no one knows the answer? I'm not an astrophysicist.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2022 18:10:55
Well, it's the time for the science community to explain how the spiral galaxy really works.They did.
It's in the literature.
Go and look it up.
why don't you give me a chance to explain how the entire spiral galaxy really works from A to Z?You have posted 4 pages worth of tosh.
Why didn't you start with the thing you just claimed you can do instead?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2022 19:22:45
You think just because I don't know the answer that literally no one knows the answer? I'm not an astrophysicist.So who can explain the functionality of the Bar in the spiral galaxy?
They did.I didn't find it.
It's in the literature.
Go and look it up.
Would you kindly offer the requested link to that literature with the explanation of the stars orbital velocity at that segment?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2022 19:35:24
I didn't find it.It may take more than 70 minutes.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2022 19:35:55
So who can explain the functionality of the Bar in the spiral galaxy?Why do you think it has a "function"?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2022 19:52:57
Do you think that the bar is there in spiral galaxy just for the fun?So who can explain the functionality of the Bar in the spiral galaxy?Why do you think it has a "function"?
The bar is an integrated part of spiral structure/body.
As an example - Every part in our body has a function.
So why do you think that the spiral galaxy has a Bar without any function?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2022 20:03:20
As an example - Every part in our body has a function.There are essentially two schools of thought about that- evolution or God.
Which one do you think applies to a galaxy and is a suitable topic for discussion on a science site?
It's like asking what is the purpose of a rock on the beach.It's not there "for" anything, it's just there.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2022 20:55:28
So who can explain the functionality of the Bar in the spiral galaxy?
Probably an astrophysicist. If you can find one, you can ask them.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2022 21:05:29
It's like asking what is the purpose of a rock on the beach.It's not there "for" anything, it's just there.How can you compare a rock to the Bar.
I have just found the following article:
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/gals/class/barredspiral
"Bars are found in up to 65% of spiral galaxies. They affect the motions of stars, dust and gas. It is believed that bars act a bit like a funnel, pulling matter into the bulge from the disk. This leads to stars forming in bursts within the centre."
So, based on this article, the Bar has an important function:
It affects the motions of stars, dust and gas from one side to the other side as a funnel.
This is 100% correct.
Those scientists believe that bar is pulling matter into the bulge from the disk.
However, is it the correct direction?
Based on what kind of observation they set this "believe" and why do they use this word?
Could it be that they just not sure about the direction and therefore they say "believe"?
Technically, why other scientists can't claim that they believe that the flow in the Bar is on the other way?
Now that we have clear observation on the Bar as it is connected with the spiral arm and we also have the knowledge about the orbital velocity of stars in that section, is there a possibility to get clear understanding about the flow direction?
Post by: Origin on 22/06/2022 21:52:48
They affect the motions of stars, dust and gas. It is believed that bars act a bit like a funnel, pulling matter into the bulge from the diskYou might find this interesting:. https://www.universetoday.com/151820/the-milky-ways-central-bar-spin-rate-is-slowing-down-thanks-to-dark-matter/#more-151820
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2022 04:00:23
Thanks OriginThey affect the motions of stars, dust and gas. It is believed that bars act a bit like a funnel, pulling matter into the bulge from the diskYou might find this interesting:. https://www.universetoday.com/151820/the-milky-ways-central-bar-spin-rate-is-slowing-down-thanks-to-dark-matter/#more-151820
Yes, it is very interesting article.
It is stated:
"So the Hercules stream follows the motion of the central bar, and the stars of the Hercules stream have migrated outwards to their present position over the past few billion years".
In other words - our scientists OBSERVE stream of stars (that is called - Hercules stream) as it migrates outwards from the central bar.
Therefore, it is an indication that stars from the central Bar migrate outwards and not inwards, exactly as I have estimated.
There is one more evidence for that:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
It is stated:
"The bar pulsations result from its regular encounters with the Galactic spiral arms, in what can be described as a “cosmic dance”. As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up.Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is. As the dancers split apart, the bar speeds up while the spiral slows back down."
The following message is very interesting:
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer"
Let's tray to read it carefully:
It is stated: "Every time they meet, the bar appears longer"
So, Every time the Bar meets with the spiral arm, it appears longer"
The only way for the Bar to appear longer is when the stars in the bar migrate outwards.
Therefore, the strong gravity force of the spiral arm force the bar to migrate stars outwards and therefore it appers longer.
However, it is also stated: "If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left)"
Hence, as the bar is disconnected from the spiral arm it is losing a section/segment of its size/arm and therefore it looks smaller.
In other words - as the Bar is in the direction of the spiral arm, a steam of stars are moving outwards from the bar (It looks longer) and it is connected to the spiral arm as they both are in a temporary one structure.
Hence, when the Bar arm is disconnected from the spiral arm, it lose some section of its size/arm and it appears smaller.
On the other hand, the spiral arm gets new section of stars and it appears longer at the disconnecting moment.
That proves that the bar function as a funnel that deliver stars from the Bulge into the spiral arm.
This is the most important observation of the spiral galaxy activity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2022 08:54:30
How can you compare a rock to the Bar.Because they are both where gravity left them.
Why should I not compare them?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2022 08:56:53
So, based on this article, the Bar has an important function:NO
A function means that there is intent.
The bar has an effect, but not a function.
You need to realise that galaxies do not think.
A rock on the beach may have seaweed of it, but supporting seaweed is not its function.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2022 09:07:39
A function means that there is intent.
The bar has an effect, but not a function.
Well, the Bar funnels/migrates the stars from the Bulge directly to the spiral arms.
If you prefer to call this activity as effect instead of function - then this is perfectly OK.
You need to realise that galaxies do not think.I agree, they do not think, they work.
Our mission is to verify how they really work.
Post by: Origin on 23/06/2022 16:28:07
Our mission is to verify how they really work.No, you're not going to verify anything. The best you can do is to try to understand what the scientist have discovered. You have not done so well on that so far. But you can always improve.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2022 18:49:08
If you prefer to call this activity as effect instead of function - then this is perfectly OK.It is perfectly OK for me to use the right word.
It is not OK for you to use the wrong one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2022 19:17:51
The best you can do is to try to understand what the scientist have discovered.To which scientist you aim and to which discovery you want us to focus?
In the article that you have offered our scientists OBSERVE stream of stars (that is called - Hercules stream) as it migrates outwards from the central bar:
You might find this interesting:. https://www.universetoday.com/151820/the-milky-ways-central-bar-spin-rate-is-slowing-down-thanks-to-dark-matter/#more-151820
"So the Hercules stream follows the motion of the central bar, and the stars of the Hercules stream have migrated outwards to their present position over the past few billion years".However, based on the following article, other scientists believe that the Bar is pulling matter into the bulge from the disk:
In other words - our scientists OBSERVE stream of stars (that is called - Hercules stream) as it migrates outwards from the central bar.
Therefore, it is an indication that stars from the central Bar migrate outwards and not inwards, exactly as I have estimated.
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/gals/class/barredspiralDon't forget that the following observation also proves that stars migrate outwards from the Bar directly into the spiral arms:
"Bars are found in up to 65% of spiral galaxies. They affect the motions of stars, dust and gas. It is believed that bars act a bit like a funnel, pulling matter into the bulge from the disk. This leads to stars forming in bursts within the centre."
.
The following message is very interesting:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer"
Let's try to read it carefully:
It is stated: "Every time they meet, the bar appears longer"
So, Every time the Bar meets with the spiral arm, it appears longer"
The only way for the Bar to appear longer is when the stars in the bar migrate outwards.
Therefore, the strong gravity force of the spiral arm force the bar to migrate stars outwards and therefore it appears longer.
However, it is also stated: "If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left)"
Hence, as the bar is disconnected from the spiral arm it is losing a section/segment of its size/arm and therefore it looks smaller.
In other words - as the Bar is in the direction of the spiral arm, a steam of stars are moving outwards from the bar (It looks longer) and it is connected to the spiral arm as they both are in a temporary one structure.
Hence, when the Bar arm is disconnected from the spiral arm, it loses some section of its size/arm and it appears smaller.
On the other hand, the spiral arm gets new section of stars and it appears longer at the disconnecting moment.
That proves that the bar function as a funnel that deliver stars from the Bulge into the spiral arm.
This is the most important observation of the spiral galaxy activity.
So, what do you expect me to do?
Should I believe to those scientists that wish to believe that stars in the bar migrates inwards from the spiral rings into the Bulge, or to those scientists that clearly observe that the Hercules stars steam migrates outwards from the Bar?
Why science can't be based on real observation and ONLY on real observation?
Do they see any sort of stars that migrates from the spiral arms into the bar?
As there is no observation for that inwards stars migration, while there are several observations for outwards migration, why those scientists claim that they wish to believe that stars in the bar migrates inwards from the spiral arms to the Bar?
Why they insist to confuse all of us?
How can you call something as "believe" to represent real science while it contradicts the observation?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 23/06/2022 19:45:23
Therefore, my opinion is : The best, and i will finish briefly here, is to consider the "graviton" (or whatever it is) like some fluid that is occupying the area around the star.
The intensity of the fluid production is extremly strong, so the filling around the star is "like if" the "fluid balloon" extend around speed of light, but soon you go further, and because of the constant (proportional to mass) production of this fluid the "balloon" growing rate decrease.
Horizon probe seems to have hit an outer wall of plasma as it was crossing the outer edge of our much bigger heliosphere, but the plasma was so oddly diffused that it was barely affected.
What you suggesting would be related with these unexpected boundaries?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2022 19:50:59
We already know that:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/This message proves that Gravity has key impact on the activity.
"As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
Based on this gravity, once the spiral arm and the bar are connected they move as one temporary structure.
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/Therefore, the same gravity force that holds the two different arms into one longer temporary structure, might keep each structure/arm (the bar arm & the spiral arm) as a temporary structures.
"Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is."
Let's assume that the motion of each star is associated with all the other in the arm by mutual attraction due to gravity. Based on this assumption lets verify if we can set a fit with the observed orbital velocities of stars in the spiral galaxy without any need for dark matter.
In order to do so, please look at the following diagram:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/figure/4
The yellow line represents stars as they migrate outwards from the Bulge directly into the spiral arms.
We see that the Bar looks as a propeller of an airplane.
Let's assume that a star in a radius of 1KPC (R1) orbits at velocity V1 and try to verify the velocity of a star at different radius at this Bar (propeller)
It is clear that:
V = V1 (R / R1).
If R = R2 = 2KPC
V2 (at 2KPC) = 2 V1 (at 1KPC)
V3 (at 3KPC) = 3 V1
That linear increase in the calculated orbital velocity is fully correlated with the orbital velocity observations at the Bar section (Below 3KPC):
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
If you agree with that we can move on to the spiral arms.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2022 20:21:03
So, what do you expect me to do?
It's in the literature.
Go and look it up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2022 04:07:15
It's in the literature.Dear BC
Go and look it up.
We currently discuss about the activity/effect at the Bar.
The OBSERVATION Based on all the literature that had been offered so far proved that stars from the bulge migrates outwards by the Bar and are funneled directly to the spiral arms
The following diagram illustrates the Bar effect by the Yellow line:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/figure/4
I have already proved that by simple gravity force there is perfect fit between the calculated orbital velocity to the observation velocity (at the Bar segment)
Actually, we can even claim that the bar acts as some sort of a temporary rigid propeller
However, in this propeller, all the stars are drifted constantly outwards.
This forum is all about real science.
Real science must be based on observation.
Therefore, if you think that the Bar works differently, then please introduce the literature which can prove your understanding by real observation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2022 04:45:08
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/index.html#Figure4
"New Formulas and Mechanism for the Spiral Arm Formation of Galaxies"
It is stated:
"This model is the first attempt to think the spiral arm formation with the hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside. The proposed mechanism of the hydrogen production seems highly speculative, but the result of the simulations is very satisfactory, this indicates that the idea for the hydrogens originated from inside the bar is a promising approach, may lead us to re-think about the property of the black holes and hope to serve as a trigger to promote the future research in this direction."
It is stated clearly:
"This model is the first attempt to think the spiral arm formation with the hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside"
"this indicates that the idea for the hydrogens originated from inside the bar is a promising approach"
Wow
What a great literature!!!
Remember please - "from inside of the galactic center to outside"
I don't need to add even one more word.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/06/2022 08:49:24
if you think that the Bar works differently,I'm a chemist.
Why do you imagine I know or care how galaxies work?
However, I still know enough about science to point out that you frequently get stuff wrong.
Post by: evan_au on 24/06/2022 09:17:17
Quote from: Dave Lev
3. Bulge (0 - 1KPC) - Why in the bulge each star orbits at different direction and orbital plane?Today I heard some projections on what might happen when the Milky Way Galaxy merges with Andromeda to form "Milkomeda".
Why the Dark matter can't force the stars in the bulge to orbit in a disc?
4. Bar (1KPC to 3KPC) - How the dark matter could form the unique structure of the Bar?
They suggested that the result will be an elliptical galaxy, with stars taking many random paths.
- ie a bulge larger than our current galaxy
- and no bar
- I am sure that the university/supercomputer-level simulations would have taken into account some hypothetical distribution of Dark Matter in the original galaxies and the merged galaxy
Maybe it is time to go down to the bar and have a glass of dark matter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2022 10:36:04
Today I heard some projections on what might happen when the Milky Way Galaxy merges with Andromeda to form "Milkomeda".Sorry, the chance to get back a nice spiral galaxy after a collision is neglected.
They suggested that the result will be an elliptical galaxy, with stars taking many random paths.
- ie a bulge larger than our current galaxy
- and no bar
- I am sure that the university/supercomputer-level simulations would have taken into account some hypothetical distribution of Dark Matter in the original galaxies and the merged galaxy
Therefore, it is very clear that the spiral galaxy is not due to collision.
Maybe it is time to go down to the bar and have a glass of dark matter.I hope that you do understand that the Dark matter (or even the Glass of dark matter) can't set all the elements in the spiral galaxy structure
However, there is already a confirmation in the following article that spiral galaxy can supports itself when the hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/index.html#Figure4It is stated that: "the result of the simulations is very satisfactory"
"New Formulas and Mechanism for the Spiral Arm Formation of Galaxies"
It is stated:
"This model is the first attempt to think the spiral arm formation with the hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside. The proposed mechanism of the hydrogen production seems highly speculative, but the result of the simulations is very satisfactory,
So why we can't accept the message from those scientists that tell us that the simulations of spiral galaxy while hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside is very satisfactory?
Why do we continue to hold the dark matter imagination?
Why can't we accept the simple observation and the mathematical simulation validation that the Bar is used as a funnel to drift stars from the Bulge directly to the spiral arms?
What's wrong with that understandings?
Why do we insist to believe in something that we can't see feel or smell?
I'm a chemist.Chemist is perfectly OK
Why do you imagine I know or care how galaxies work?
However, as you don't care how galaxy works, then why do you waste our time?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/06/2022 17:48:07
It is stated that: "the result of the simulations is very satisfactory"
So if you think that simulation is evidence, then that means a simulation of dark matter could constitute evidence too, right?
Why do we continue to hold the dark matter imagination?
The galactic rotation curve anomaly.
Why can't we accept the simple observation and the mathematical simulation validation that the Bar is used as a funnel to drift stars from the Bulge directly to the spiral arms?
Because the simulation being correct wouldn't eliminate the need for dark matter. The anomalous galactic rotation curve still needs to be explained.
Why do we insist to believe in something that we can't see feel or smell?
You can't see, feel or smell the radio waves that are flitting through the air either. Do you disbelieve in those?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/06/2022 18:03:05
then why do you waste our time?Pointing out your mistakes isn't wasting time.
On the other hand, you posting nonsense is a waste of everyone's time.Why do you do it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2022 20:51:59
Because the simulation being correct wouldn't eliminate the need for dark matter. The anomalous galactic rotation curve still needs to be explained.
There is no need for dark matter to explain the anomalous galactic rotation curve.
Please look again at the rotation curve:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
1. Bar - Below 3KPC
I have already explained how this segment works.
There is no need for dark matter as gravity that funnels the stars from the Bulge into the inwards side of the spiral arms is good enough:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/figure/4
The yellow line represents stars as they migrate outwards from the Bulge directly into the spiral arms.
We see that the Bar looks as a propeller of an airplane.
Let's assume that a star in a radius of 1KPC (R1) orbits at velocity V1 and try to verify the velocity of a star at different radius at this Bar (propeller)
It is clear that:
V = V1 (R / R1).
If R = R2 = 2KPC
V2 (at 2KPC) = 2 V1 (at 1KPC)
V3 (at 3KPC) = 3 V1
That linear increase in the calculated orbital velocity is fully correlated with the orbital velocity observations at the Bar section (Below 3KPC):
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
If you agree with that we can move on to the spiral arms.
2. Spiral arm segment 3KPC to 15 KPC
We already know that as the bar spines faster than the spiral arm, it adds new stars to the most inwards side of the arm and therefore it increases the spiral arm size (from inside).
In order to keep the spiral shape of the arm while new stars are added from inside, the stars that are already there must drift backwards and keep on with their current fixed velocity.
So, please look at the following image and focus on the connection point between the Bar and the spiral arm.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/figure/4
Let's assume that in this point there is a star (Let's call it Star A) which had just been delivered by the bar and is connected now to the spiral arm.
So, technically, star A is currently the most inwards star in the spiral arm and its orbital velocity might represent the maximal velocity of the spiral arm.
However, as the spin velocity of the bar is faster than the spin velocity of the spiral arm, than let's assume that after a given time frame (T) the Bar would move upwards and new star (let's call it star B) would be delivered from the bar to the arm.
Now star B is located at the most inwards side of the arm, while star A is second one in the yellow line.
As the Bar keeps its motion, new stars are coming and are connected to the most inwards side of the spiral arm.
After 100 new stars, Star A is already located 100 stars away from the most inwards point of the spiral arm.
Therefore, star A could keep its orbital velocity while new stars are added from inwards by the bar.
The key idea is that the spiral arm isn't a solid object where a star in the top would stay there forever.
It is a temporary structure of stars that constantly drift backwards while maintaining their fixed orbital velocity.
However, as new stars are constantly added from inside, the spiral arm shape is maintained over time.
So, if a star moves backwards at distance of D at a given time T then after 100T star A had already drifted backwards is the arm by a distance of 100D.
Hence, while new stars are added constantly at the most inwards side of the arm, all the millions or billions stars in this arm can maintain a fixed orbital velocity of about 220 Km/s without breaking the spiral arm shape.
However, that means that stars can't hold themselves in the arm for indefinitely.
Sooner or later a star which had been delivered by the bar at the most inwards side of the arm would be eventually ejected from the most outwards side of the arm.
In this way the orbital velocity of all the stars in the arm would be fixed and the temporary structure of the spiral arm would be stable.
Is it clear?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/06/2022 05:32:07
Is it clear?
Clearly wrong. Orbital velocity is determined by gravity.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 06:30:05
Orbital velocity is determined by gravity.Yes, that is correct.
But the velocity of stars in the spiral arm is determined by movement of the arm.
As the arm is drifted constantly backwards (while new stars is coming from inside), all the stars in the arm can maintain their fixed orbital velocity.
Our scientists assume that a star keeps its orbital radius.
This is a sever mistake.
Any star in the spiral arm must only keep its location in the spiral arm...
As the spiral arm drifts backwards, the star is increasing the radius without increasing its velocity.
Actually, we can think on the spiral arm as some sort of elastic cable.
At the most inwards side of the arm it is connected to the ring. At this point its size is 3,000 LY which is almost 1KPC - exactly the same size as the Bulge although it is located 3KPC from the center.
At the most outwards side of the arm (15Kpc), its thickness is just 400LY.
So, the furthest star which is located in that elastic cable/arm, sets sever forces on the arm and therefore it stretches the arm backwards and the arm become thinner.
Sooner or later, the arm wouldn't maintain the last star in the arm and it would be ejected outwards from the arm and from the galactic disc.
So, any star that is not located directly at the galactic disc (at the given thickness of the arm) tells us that it had already been ejected from the spiral arms.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 06:37:49
So, I have asked myself what would happen to a spiral galaxy if it loses its bar?
The answer is simple - You would get a ring galaxy:
Hoag's Object, an unusual ring galaxy - Hubble Space Telescope
https://www.astrobin.com/full/nvye4e/0/
The Hoag's ring galaxy is a perfect example.
There is no Bar that can funnel the stars from the Bulge into the main spiral arms.
If you look carefully on the ring, you would see that its made of unlimited number of thin spiral arms.
The direction of those tinny spiral arms tells us the spinning direction of the ring.
So how it really works?
Each star that is ejected from the central bulge must find its way by itself as there is no Bar that can collect them all and funnel them into the main spiral arms.
Therefore, as a star is ejected outwards from the central bulge it is attracted by the ring gravity force.
Statistically it can get to anyone of those tiny spiral arms.
As an example - we can use a Rolette.
Each ball/star is ejected from the center and fall statistically in a different slot/spiral tinny arm.
Once the star is there, it is connected to the inwards side of that tinny spiral arms.
Over time, new stars would fall exactly at the same slot/tinny spiral arm and all the stars in that tinny arm would be shifted backwards.
Sooner or latter, each star would be ejected from the outwards side of the ring.
If at some point the Bugle would stop to eject new stars, the ring would continue to eject stars from its outwards side, without getting new from the inwards side.
Eventually, the ring would disappear.
One more example:
https://www.facebook.com/edgeoftheunivers/photos/a.660437801012218/903938739995455
It is stated:
"LEDA 1000714 is a ring galaxy in the constellation Crater. LEDA 1000714 is one of a very rare group of galaxies called Hoag-type galaxies, named after the prototype, Hoag's Object. it is estimated that roughly 0.1% of all galaxies are this type. It's a rare galaxy that is challenging our understanding of the universe. This galaxy is approximately 300 million light years away. It was discovered by Burçin Mutlu-Pakdil, an astrophysicist at the University of Arizona."
Our scientists claim: " It's a rare galaxy that is challenging our understanding of the universe"
My answer for those scientists is as follow: If you would eliminate the dark matter imagination you would understand that gravity force of the ordinary matter is good enough for the proper activity in any type of galaxy.
Each galaxy works on the very basic laws of gravity forces.
That's all
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 07:02:37
Therefore, this is one more evidence why there is no need for dark matter in any type of galaxy.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/06/2022 08:08:34
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 09:09:17
The bar isn't some kind of magical propulsion system that lets stars violate Kepler's third law.There is no violation of any physical law by the Bar (including the Kepler's third law).
In the article it is stated:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/Hence the same gravity force that holds the stars in the bar arm and in the spiral arm as one connected temporary structure, also keeps each arm as a temporary structure.
It is stated:
"The bar pulsations result from its regular encounters with the Galactic spiral arms, in what can be described as a “cosmic dance”. As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up.Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is. As the dancers split apart, the bar speeds up while the spiral slows back down."
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
It is also stated: "Once connected, the two structures move as one"
Post by: Kryptid on 25/06/2022 17:51:58
There is no violation of any physical law by the Bar (including the Kepler's third law).
If it's orbiting faster than Kepler's third law allows, then it is.
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
The bar contains stars too. If the bar is slowing down, then the stars in the bar are also slowing down. So you have some stars speeding up and others slowing down. So overall, there is no average gain in velocity. If there is no average gain in velocity, then the anomalous galactic rotation curve remains unresolved.
Even if it was true that they somehow sped up and retained that increased orbital speed indefinitely, then they should no longer be able to maintain an orbit around the Milky Way galaxy because they are going too quickly to be retained by the Milky Way's gravity. That was the whole problem from the beginning. The stars in the outer regions of the galaxy are orbiting too fast for the amount of gravity that the Milky Way should be producing if there was only normal matter present. The fact that the galaxy has kept these super-fast stars demonstrates the need for extra gravity that is caused by something we can't see: i.e. dark matter.
Hence the same gravity force that holds the stars in the bar arm and in the spiral arm as one connected temporary structure, also keeps each arm as a temporary structure.
"Temporary" being the key word here. What do you think happens when they are no longer one structure?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 18:32:59
The bar contains stars too. If the bar is slowing down, then the stars in the bar are also slowing down. So you have some stars speeding up and others slowing down. So overall, there is no average gain in velocity. If there is no average gain in velocity, then the anomalous galactic rotation curve remains unresolved.Don't you agree that the dark matter idea can't offer a solution for the galactic rotation curve in the Bar segment?
If you think that the gravity is not good enough for the Bar, then how the bar really works based on your understanding?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 18:41:00
If you try to break down the temporary structure of the spiral arm in the galactic disc, then all the stars in that arm would be kicked out from the galactic disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:09:17
Hence the same gravity force that holds the stars in the bar arm and in the spiral arm as one connected temporary structure, also keeps each arm as a temporary structure.
"Temporary" being the key word here. What do you think happens when they are no longer one structure?
Nothing would help. Not even the dark matter imagination.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 18:55:01
Even if it was true that they somehow sped up and retained that increased orbital speed indefinitely, then they should no longer be able to maintain an orbit around the Milky Way galaxy because they are going too quickly to be retained by the Milky Way's gravity.Again, do you mean that there is a problem in the bar or in the galactic disc?
That was the whole problem from the beginning.But so far you have no real solution for the Bar rotation curve problem?
The stars in the outer regions of the galaxy are orbiting too fast for the amount of gravity that the Milky Way should be producing if there was only normal matter present.As the stars are connected to the spiral arm, then their orbital velocity is dictated by the orbital velocity of the arm itself.
The fact that the galaxy has kept these super-fast stars demonstrates the need for extra gravity that is caused by something we can't see: i.e. dark matter.Actually, it is very difficult even for the spiral arms to keep those stars that are located at the most outwards locations in the spiral arms.
We clearly see that those stars at the far end of the spiral galaxy stretch the arm to its maximal.
Therefore, the thickness there is just 400 LY (at 15KPC) instead of 3000Ly at the base on the arm (at 3KPC).
The dark matter idea CAN'T explain this phenomenon!!!
Therefore, I call it the dark matter imagination.
Why do we prefer the dark matter idea that can only solve 25% of the problems while the gravity of the spiral arms can solve 100% of the problems?
Please be aware that at some point those far end stars in the spiral arms must be disconnected from the arm.
The dark matter idea can't also give an answer for that
Therefore, the only way for a star to keep itself in the galactic disc is by holding the spiral arm.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/06/2022 20:19:18
Don't you agree that the dark matter idea can't offer a solution for the galactic rotation curve in the Bar segment?
No, I don't agree.
If you think that the gravity is not good enough for the Bar, then how the bar really works based on your understanding?
Gravity is good enough if you are including the gravity from dark matter.
If you try to break down the temporary structure of the spiral arm in the galactic disc, then all the stars in that arm would be kicked out from the galactic disc.
The fact that the structure is temporary means that it does, eventually, break down. Yet those stars aren't kicked out from the galactic disk.
Nothing would help. Not even the dark matter imagination.
The extra gravity contributed by dark matter absolutely would help. It's that extra gravity that keeps those fast-moving stars from getting away from the galaxy.
Again, do you mean that there is a problem in the bar or in the galactic disc?
Neither. It's your misunderstanding that is the problem.
But so far you have no real solution for the Bar rotation curve problem?
What "bar rotation curve problem"? I think you are mixing up two different issues.
As the stars are connected to the spiral arm, then their orbital velocity is dictated by the orbital velocity of the arm itself.
Which, in turn, is dictated by gravity (hence why I mentioned Kepler's third law).
The dark matter idea CAN'T explain this phenomenon!!!
Because...?
Why do we prefer the dark matter idea that can only solve 25% of the problems while the gravity of the spiral arms can solve 100% of the problems?
Where did you get those numbers from?
Please be aware that at some point those far end stars in the spiral arms must be disconnected from the arm.
The dark matter idea can't also give an answer for that
It was never supposed to.
Therefore, the only way for a star to keep itself in the galactic disc is by holding the spiral arm.
And that holding is done by gravity. The gravity produced by normal matter isn't enough. Hence why we need dark matter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/06/2022 12:01:15
Well, there are too many open questions about the dark matter, please answer the following:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:55:01Where did you get those numbers from?
Why do we prefer the dark matter idea that can only solve 25% of the problems while the gravity of the spiral arms can solve 100% of the problems?
1. It is much less than 25%. I hope that we all agree that our scientists don't have a clue what is it and how it had been created and why it is there exactly at the density that they wish. However, please specify the dark matter density formula that is invented for the Milky way.
2. Galactic Disc -
A. How this dark matter formula can set the disc only at the spiral arms (3KPC to 15KPC)?
B. Why in the Bulge there is no Disc at all?
C. Why the disc does not continue after 15KPC? Actually, do you confirm that when arm is ended, the stars after that point are ejected from the disc?
D. Why the thickeners of the arm at the base is 3000LY while at the end it is 400LY? How Kepler law can explain this phenomenon
3. Bar -
Can you please explain how the same dark matter that aim to keep the orbital velocity of the stars in the galactic disc at a fixed velocity can suddenly increase so dramatically the orbital velocity of stars in this section? How the dark matter formula can justify that dramatic increase
4. Ring
A. How the dark matter formula can justify the creation of the Ring?
B. Why the ring is always created between the end of the bar to the base of the spiral arms?
C. Why do you think that Kepler law works better with dark matter for this section?
Post by: Origin on 26/06/2022 13:09:53
It is much less than 25%.Why do you enjoy making up stuff?
I hope that we all agree that our scientists don't have a clue what is it and how it had been created and why it is there exactly at the density that they wish.Classic Dave BS. You imply the Astrophysicists lie and make up a number for 'a density they wish', instead of the truth which is they describe the density that the evidence suggests. This is probably to subtle for Dave to get.
However, please specify the dark matter density formula that is invented for the Milky way.Again Dave throws astrophysics under the bus, implying the research is just made up.
2. Galactic Disc -So basically, you don't know much about astrophysics, so you make up absurd WAGs to answer questions that come from your ignorance. Nice...
A. How this dark matter formula can set the disc only at the spiral arms (3KPC to 15KPC)?
B. Why in the Bulge there is no Disc at all?
C. Why the disc does not continue after 15KPC? Actually, do you confirm that when arm is ended, the stars after that point are ejected from the disc?
D. Why the thickeners of the arm at the base is 3000LY while at the end it is 400LY? How Kepler law can explain this phenomenon
3. Bar -
Can you please explain how the same dark matter that aim to keep the orbital velocity of the stars in the galactic disc at a fixed velocity can suddenly increase so dramatically the orbital velocity of stars in this section? How the dark matter formula can justify that dramatic increase
4. Ring
A. How the dark matter formula can justify the creation of the Ring?
B. Why the ring is always created between the end of the bar to the base of the spiral arms?
C. Why do you think that Kepler law works better with dark matter for this section?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/06/2022 14:14:37
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/06/2022 16:04:04
What dark matter formula are you talking about? Scientists do indeed have ideas about what dark matter could be: axions, sterile neutrinos, WIMPS, and primordial black holes for example.Well, if it is too difficult to offer the dark matter density formula for the milky way then let's move on.
Please look at the following rotation cure.
Do you confirm that the dark matter can ONLY explain at its best case the orbital velocity at the galactic disc and no more than that?
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
Hence, there are still too many open questions.
So please - would you kindly answer the following questions:
2. Galactic Disc -
A. How this dark matter formula can set the disc only at the spiral arms (3KPC to 15KPC)?
B. Why in the Bulge there is no Disc at all?
C. Why the disc does not continue after 15KPC? Actually, do you confirm that when arm is ended, the stars after that point are ejected from the disc?
D. Why the thickeners of the arm at the base is 3000LY while at the end it is 400LY? How Kepler law can explain this phenomenon
3. Bar -
Can you please explain how the same dark matter that aim to keep the orbital velocity of the stars in the galactic disc at a fixed velocity can suddenly increase so dramatically the orbital velocity of stars in this section? How the dark matter formula can justify that dramatic increase
4. Ring
A. How the dark matter formula can justify the creation of the Ring?
B. Why the ring is always created between the end of the bar to the base of the spiral arms?
C. Why do you think that Kepler law works better with dark matter for this section?
If you can't do so, then how can we believe in the dark matter invention/imagination?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/06/2022 17:26:03
Well, if it is too difficult to offer the dark matter density formula for the milky way then let's move on.
What would you want such a formula to say? How the density of dark matter correlates with distance from the galactic center?
Do you confirm that the dark matter can ONLY explain at its best case the orbital velocity at the galactic disc and no more than that?
I don't know why you would come to that conclusion.
If you can't do so, then how can we believe in the dark matter invention/imagination?
I'm not an astrophysicist. I haven't researched much into why the galaxy has the structure that it does. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that no one does. If you want to know the answers to these questions, perhaps you should address them to an actual astrophysicist.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/06/2022 04:42:56
What would you want such a formula to say?Well, I hope that you agree that such formula would say - what is needed from the dark matter in order to keep the orbital velocity of star at a fixed velocity while it is in the galactic disc (3KPC to 15KPC). That's all.
Our astrophysicists can invent any sort of formula for that task as they wish. They might need different formulas for different galaxies, but that is still ok, as they don't have to prove anything. They are the master of knowledge and they have the privilege that other people don't have.
Just think for one moment on the following scenario –
Let's assume that we don't know how the gravity really works. If I will tell you that there is dark glue that holds the stars together, would you believe in this imagination?
Won't you demand to get real data for this dark glue imagination?
So, luckily for our astrophysicists, they don't have to prove anything as they control the science.
How the density of dark matter correlates with distance from the galactic center?When it comes to distance from the galactic center (at the Bar section- below 3KPC), then there is severe problem.
Without being astrophysicist it is very clear that orbital velocity in the Bar (Below 3KPC) is totally different from that in the galactic disc as in this section the velocity is increasing dramatically and linearly as we move further away from the center (up to 3KPC).
Therefore, the invented formula for the dark matter in the galactic disc totally fail in the bar section.
I hope that by now you see the severe contradiction in the dark matter imagination..
I'm not an astrophysicist. I haven't researched much into why the galaxy has the structure that it does. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that no one does. If you want to know the answers to these questions, perhaps you should address them to an actual astrophysicist.The same formula for the imagination dark matter that can solve the fixed orbital velocity at the galactic disc can't solve the dramatically increasing in the same orbital velocity at the Bar.
Therefore, the dark matter can't offer even one answer to all my questions as it isn't the correct solution
You won't find even one astrophysicist in the entire planet (or if you wish - in the entire universe) that can help you to answer my questions based on the imagination that is called dark matter!
Post by: Kryptid on 27/06/2022 05:22:10
Well, I hope that you agree that such formula would say - what is needed from the dark matter in order to keep the orbital velocity of star at a fixed velocity while it is in the galactic disc (3KPC to 15KPC). That's all.
Our astrophysicists can invent any sort of formula for that task as they wish.
Ideally, they wouldn't "invent" a formula so much as derive one. They would need to take a look at how the rotation curve correlates with the mass of visible matter in the galaxy, then deduce from that what the needed distribution of dark matter would have to be in order to explain the rotation curve. Once you get that predicted distribution, you'd look for an equation that best matches it.
Let's assume that we don't know how the gravity really works. If I will tell you that there is dark glue that holds the stars together, would you believe in this imagination?
That would depend on what your definition for "dark glue" is. If your definition is "whatever it is that's holding the stars together", then I would agree with you.
Without being astrophysicist it is very clear that orbital velocity in the Bar (Below 3KPC) is totally different from that in the galactic disc as in this section the velocity is increasing dramatically and linearly as we move further away from the center (up to 3KPC).
That's not surprising, honestly. Orbital velocity is dependent upon how much mass you are orbiting. When a star is orbiting very close to the center of the galaxy, then most of the galactic mass is outside of its orbit, not inside of it. So the pull of gravity on that star is weaker than on a star further out. It's the same principle that makes an object deep inside the Earth weigh less than that same object on the surface. Why this relationship seems to be linear in the galactic core is something I don't know the answer to. It's no doubt due to the way that mass is distributed in the galaxy. So this is not a problem for dark matter.
Therefore, the invented formula for the dark matter in the galactic disc totally fail in the bar section.
Please demonstrate this.
I hope that by now you see the severe contradiction in the dark matter imagination..
No, I don't.
The same formula for the imagination dark matter that can solve the fixed orbital velocity at the galactic disc can't solve the dramatically increasing in the same orbital velocity at the Bar.
Therefore, the dark matter can't offer even one answer to all my questions as it isn't the correct solution
How do you know? Have you done the math?
You won't find even one astrophysicist in the entire planet (or if you wish - in the entire universe) that can help you to solve my questions.
Feel free to support that claim. Have you even asked an astrophysicist yet?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/06/2022 13:25:00
Ideally, they wouldn't "invent" a formula so much as derive one. They would need to take a look at how the rotation curve correlates with the mass of visible matter in the galaxy, then deduce from that what the needed distribution of dark matter would have to be in order to explain the rotation curve. Once you get that predicted distribution, you'd look for an equation that best matches it.That is very clear
However, on which section in the galactic disc they invent the formula?
Please look again in the following diagram:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
Is it for the section of the spiral arms where the velocity is more or less fixed at radius above 3KPC?
Or is it for the section of the Bar where the velocity is increasing linearly and dramatically at radius below 3KPC?
How can I demonstrate it while you refuse to offer the dark matter density formula for the milky way?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:42:56
Therefore, the invented formula for the dark matter in the galactic disc totally fail in the bar section.
Please demonstrate this.
Have you done the math?Please offer the formula and I will prove by math that this formula is a pure nonsense.
Have you even asked an astrophysicist yet?How can I find that astrophysicist that had not been born yet.
Sorry - if you ask all the astrophysicists in the planet, no one would be able to answer my following questions:
1. please specify the dark matter density formula that is invented for the Milky way.
2. Galactic Disc -
A. How this dark matter formula can set the disc only at the spiral arms (3KPC to 15KPC)?
B. Why in the Bulge there is no Disc at all?
C. Why the disc does not continue after 15KPC? Actually, do you confirm that when arm is ended, the stars after that point are ejected from the disc?
D. Why the thickeners of the arm at the base is 3000LY while at the end it is 400LY? How Kepler law can explain this phenomenon
3. Bar -
Can you please explain how the same dark matter that aim to keep the orbital velocity of the stars in the galactic disc at a fixed velocity can suddenly increase so dramatically the orbital velocity of stars in this section? How the dark matter formula can justify that dramatic increase
4. Ring
A. How the dark matter formula can justify the creation of the Ring?
B. Why the ring is always created between the end of the bar to the base of the spiral arms?
C. Why do you think that Kepler law works better with dark matter for this section?
If you think that they can do so, then would you kindly direct my questions to one of them?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/06/2022 13:28:35
How can I find that astrophysicist that had not been born yet.Nobody asked you to.
Why do you ask stupid questions like that?
Are you trolling, or are you unable to understand that it's a stupid question?
take all the astrophysicists in the planet, and no one would be able to answer my following questions:How would you know?
Did you ask , even one astrophysicist?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/06/2022 19:42:37
Is it for the section of the spiral arms where the velocity is more or less fixed at radius above 3KPC?
Or is it for the section of the Bar where the velocity is increasing linearly and dramatically at radius below 3KPC?
Who said a single formula can't apply to both?
How can I demonstrate it while you refuse to offer the dark matter density formula for the milky way?
Okay, so you admit that you can't demonstrate your claim. You shouldn't make claims that you can't back up.
Who said that such a formula had actually been derived yet anyway?
Please offer the formula and I will prove by math that this formula is a pure nonsense.
Interesting how you assume in advance that a formula is wrong without ever having seen it.
How can I find that astrophysicist that had not been born yet.
Please demonstrate that astrophysicist hasn't yet been born.
Sorry - if you ask all the astrophysicists in the planet, no one would be able to answer my following questions:
Please demonstrate that no astrophysicist can answer those questions.
If you think that they can do so, then would you kindly direct my questions to one of them?
I don't know why you think I am any more capable of finding an astrophysicist than you are. Perhaps you can find one in the science sections of Reddit to ask.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/06/2022 20:30:01
EasyQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:25:00Please demonstrate that no astrophysicist can answer those questions.
Sorry - if you ask all the astrophysicists in the planet, no one would be able to answer my following questions:
Let's assume that somehow our astrophysicists have invented a perfect formula for the following rotation velocity in the milky way:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
We can take this formula and run it on a computer and get back exactly the same identical orbital velocity as we have in the diagram.
So, far so good.
However, what about the shape?
How that formula that is all about different densities at different radius can set the unique structure of spiral galaxy?
Why the Bulge has a spherical shape from 0 to 1K PC?
How the Bar gets its two propeller arms from 1KPC to 3KPC
How the ring with all its stars is there exactly at 3KPC and why it has a ring shape and not a spherical shape as the Bulge?
How the spiral arms (above 3KPC) had been formed and why it is on a disc?
Sorry, no one (including all the astrophysicists in the Universe) can answer those questions as the shape of the galaxy isn't part of the dark matter density formula and can't be.
Therefore, as this invented formula can't be used to reproduced the full structure shape of the spiral galaxy, then we all need to understand that it is just imagination.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/06/2022 20:34:58
Sorry, no one (including all the astrophysicists in the Universe) can answer those questions as the shape of the galaxy isn't part of the dark matter density formula and can't be.
Then don't ask it to explain something that it was never meant to explain in the first place. That's like saying that the formula for Kepler's third law is wrong because it doesn't explain why the planets in the Solar System have the distances from the Sun that they have. It's a non-sequitur.
Post by: paul cotter on 27/06/2022 20:38:30
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/06/2022 03:24:18
ThanksSorry, no one (including all the astrophysicists in the Universe) can answer those questions as the shape of the galaxy isn't part of the dark matter density formula and can't be.
Then don't ask it to explain something that it was never meant to explain in the first place.
So you fully confirm that the dark matter can't give any sort of indication about the shape of the spiral galaxy.
That's like saying that the formula for Kepler's third law is wrong because it doesn't explain why the planets in the Solar System have the distances from the Sun that they have. It's a non-sequitur.No it is not
If you run the kepler law on the computer you would get a perfect match to the observation with regards to the velocity and shape.
However, if you run the dark matter on the computer you only get the velocity.
As it doesn't cover the shape, then it can't be used as a theory for the spiral galaxy.
This is my opinion.
until someone has a better theory it is the best explanation for observations at the present moment.No.
If you are using wrong theory then you stuck with that theory.
That is how science works and it is futile "throwing stones" at a theory unless you have better concept complete with full mathematical description.Actually I have a theory that meets the observation by 100%.
However, if you believe in the dark matter imagination, it might be too difficult for you to accept the real theory.
The real theory is all about gravity between ordinary matter.
We have clear observation that proves the gravity forces in the arms
It is stated:
” As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up Once connected"
I have just found an excellent article about the Bar:Please also see the following reply:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
It is stated:
"The bar pulsations result from its regular encounters with the Galactic spiral arms, in what can be described as a “cosmic dance”. As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up.Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is. As the dancers split apart, the bar speeds up while the spiral slows back down."
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
It is also stated: "Once connected, the two structures move as one"
So it is all about gravity that connects the stars in the Bar to those in the spiral arm so they all become one.
Wow!!!
What a great information!!!
I was looking for that information for years.
This is the smoking gun of the spiral galaxy!
Not gravity between dark matter to ordinary matter but gravity between two key elements (Bar and spiral arms) in the spiral galaxy that are all based on ordinary matter as stars.
If our scientists would understand the real meaning of this explanation, they would verify that there is no need for dark matter. The stars (ordinary matter) in each element in the galaxy are good enough to maintain its full structure (Bulge, Bar, Ring, Spiral arms...) without any need for even one particle of dark matter!
Take out one element from that complex and you break down the galaxy.
Nothing would help - not even dark matter.
The Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?
That does seem to be the case.
Other group of scientists gave us the explanation how it works:
I have found a breakthrough literature that fully supports my understanding:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/index.html#Figure4
"New Formulas and Mechanism for the Spiral Arm Formation of Galaxies"
It is stated:
"This model is the first attempt to think the spiral arm formation with the hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside. The proposed mechanism of the hydrogen production seems highly speculative, but the result of the simulations is very satisfactory, this indicates that the idea for the hydrogens originated from inside the bar is a promising approach, may lead us to re-think about the property of the black holes and hope to serve as a trigger to promote the future research in this direction."
It is stated clearly:
"This model is the first attempt to think the spiral arm formation with the hydrogen originated from inside of the galactic center to outside"
"this indicates that the idea for the hydrogens originated from inside the bar is a promising approach"
Wow
What a great literature!!!
Remember please - "from inside of the galactic center to outside"
I don't need to add even one more word.
Based on all of that, I have offered a simple explanation how it really works:
There is no need for dark matter to explain the anomalous galactic rotation curve.
Please look again at the rotation curve:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
1. Bar - Below 3KPC
I have already explained how this segment works.
There is no need for dark matter as gravity that funnels the stars from the Bulge into the inwards side of the spiral arms is good enough:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2022 19:50:59
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/figure/4
The yellow line represents stars as they migrate outwards from the Bulge directly into the spiral arms.
We see that the Bar looks as a propeller of an airplane.
Let's assume that a star in a radius of 1KPC (R1) orbits at velocity V1 and try to verify the velocity of a star at different radius at this Bar (propeller)
It is clear that:
V = V1 (R / R1).
If R = R2 = 2KPC
V2 (at 2KPC) = 2 V1 (at 1KPC)
V3 (at 3KPC) = 3 V1
That linear increase in the calculated orbital velocity is fully correlated with the orbital velocity observations at the Bar section (Below 3KPC):
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
If you agree with that we can move on to the spiral arms.
2. Spiral arm segment 3KPC to 15 KPC
We already know that as the bar spines faster than the spiral arm, it adds new stars to the most inwards side of the arm and therefore it increases the spiral arm size (from inside).
In order to keep the spiral shape of the arm while new stars are added from inside, the stars that are already there must drift backwards and keep on with their current fixed velocity.
So, please look at the following image and focus on the connection point between the Bar and the spiral arm.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/2/figure/4
Let's assume that in this point there is a star (Let's call it Star A) which had just been delivered by the bar and is connected now to the spiral arm.
So, technically, star A is currently the most inwards star in the spiral arm and its orbital velocity might represent the maximal velocity of the spiral arm.
However, as the spin velocity of the bar is faster than the spin velocity of the spiral arm, than let's assume that after a given time frame (T) the Bar would move upwards and new star (let's call it star B) would be delivered from the bar to the arm.
Now star B is located at the most inwards side of the arm, while star A is second one in the yellow line.
As the Bar keeps its motion, new stars are coming and are connected to the most inwards side of the spiral arm.
After 100 new stars, Star A is already located 100 stars away from the most inwards point of the spiral arm.
Therefore, star A could keep its orbital velocity while new stars are added from inwards by the bar.
The key idea is that the spiral arm isn't a solid object where a star in the top would stay there forever.
It is a temporary structure of stars that constantly drift backwards while maintaining their fixed orbital velocity.
However, as new stars are constantly added from inside, the spiral arm shape is maintained over time.
So, if a star moves backwards at distance of D at a given time T then after 100T star A had already drifted backwards is the arm by a distance of 100D.
Hence, while new stars are added constantly at the most inwards side of the arm, all the millions or billions stars in this arm can maintain a fixed orbital velocity of about 220 Km/s without breaking the spiral arm shape.
However, that means that stars can't hold themselves in the arm for indefinitely.
Sooner or later a star which had been delivered by the bar at the most inwards side of the arm would be eventually ejected from the most outwards side of the arm.
In this way the orbital velocity of all the stars in the arm would be fixed and the temporary structure of the spiral arm would be stable.
Is it clear?
And the answer was:
Is it clear?
Clearly wrong. Orbital velocity is determined by gravity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/06/2022 09:09:17
There is no violation of any physical law by the Bar (including the Kepler's third law).
If it's orbiting faster than Kepler's third law allows, then it is.
My answer to that is as follow:
In the galaxy we discuss about stars that are bounded together by gravity.
Please remember:
” As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up Once connected"
Therefore, we can't just discuss about a single star as it orbits around the center of the galaxy.
The star is not there by itself as it is connected to the arm by gravity. So, its gravity only connects it to the arm while its movement around the galaxy is dictated by the arm.
As an example, let me use the idea of a person that is crossing the air in an airplane.
So, by simple calculation, there is no way for a person by itself to fly at so high velocity in the air.
However, once you understand that this person holds itself in the airplane, then you can understand how it gets its high velocity.
In the same token, once you understand that the star holds itself in the arm, then you can understand how it gets its high velocity.
Why is it so complicate to understand so simple observation?
All the billions stars in the disc are connected by gravity to the spiral arms.
Therefore, they all orbit in one direction around the galaxy center without any collision between them.
That also explains the thickness of the arms. It is 3000 LY in the base (3KPC) and 400LY at the end of the arm (15KPC).If you would consider the spiral arm as some sort of elastic cable then this is exactly the phenomenon that you get once you start to spin that cable.
Hence, from now on we must set the calculation on the arm that holds the stars and not on individual star.
The Sun for example holds itself to the Orion arm.
We have a solid evidence for that - The density of stars in the Orion arm near our sun.
I have already introduce that the measured G stars density in a radius of 100 LY is 512 therefore, the calculated densities per 50 LY is 64 G stars. Surprisingly, our scientists found that the measured stars in a radius of 50 LY is exactly 64 Stars.
So, there is a perfect match between the calculated densities to the measured density.
Therefore, the sun holds itself to the Orion arm and not to the center of the galaxy.
I can tell you that by 100% you won't find even one star that orbits at the disc while it is there by itself.
Actually, if a star would move away from the arm it would be ejected from the disc as a rocket. We see those stars and we call them hypervelocity stars.
Hence, as long as the Sun holds itself to the Orion Arm – we are save and we get the protection of the galaxy. However, we are quite close to the edge of the arm (about 200LY). If we cross that edge we would also be ejected from the disc.
The dark matter imagination can't help to any star that is moving away from the arm.
Therefore, if you want a real theory – then you must consider the arm (the bar arms and the spiral arms) as a temporary connected stars structures by gravity, and you already have full understanding on how spiral galaxy really works without a need for one particle of dark matter.
So which theory is more realistic?
Is it the one that can explain the full structure of spiral galaxy including velocities and shape at each segment of the galaxy (Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms...) without any need for extra gravity, or is it a theory that is based on imagination dark matter while it can't give us any indication about the galaxy shape/structure?
I am not an astrophysicist, not even a physicist.You don't need to be a scientist
Just read the following:
” As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up Once connected"
Do you agree that this arm structure is real?
Therefore, if our scientists would drop the dark matter imagination and focus on all the observations that are there infront of their eyes, they would get to the simple understanding that the arm is real.
As long as they ignore the impact of that real arm, they would never understand how the spiral galaxy really works!
Post by: Kryptid on 28/06/2022 06:56:43
So you fully confirm that the dark matter can't give any sort of indication about the shape of the spiral galaxy.
Then let's not pretend that it was ever supposed to in the first place.
No it is not
If you run the kepler law on the computer you would get a perfect match to the observation with regards to the velocity and shape.
It does? Where does Kepler's third law say anything about a galaxy's shape?
As it doesn't cover the shape, then it can't be used as a theory for the spiral galaxy.
It can be used for what it was originally proposed to explain: the anomalous rotation curve. It doesn't have to explain literally everything about a galaxy (in large part because it's not the only thing that galaxies contain). That's like saying that the fat in my body has to explain why the rest of my body that isn't fat behaves the way it does.
Actually I have a theory that meets the observation by 100%.
No, it doesn't. Your model doesn't explain the anomalous galactic rotation curve. Stars are orbiting faster than they are supposed to be able to in the outer parts of the galaxy if you only include normal matter in the measurement of gravity. Without dark matter (or perhaps MOND) there isn't enough gravity to keep those stars orbiting at such a high speed.
The real theory is all about gravity between ordinary matter.
It's not enough. That's why I brought up Kepler's third law. If you only include the mass of normal matter, the results don't match what Kepler's third law predicts. That's how we know that the known gravity produced by normal matter is insufficient to explain the data.
We have clear observation that proves the gravity forces in the arms
It is stated:
” As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up Once connected"
You see that part I underlined? That's the part you are ignoring.
As an example, let me use the idea of a person that is crossing the air in an airplane.
So, by simple calculation, there is no way for a person by itself to fly at so high velocity in the air.
However, once you understand that this person holds itself in the airplane, then you can understand how it gets its high velocity.
In the same token, once you understand that the star holds itself in the arm, then you can understand how it gets its high velocity.
Why is it so complicate to understand so simple observation?
Because it's a false analogy. In the case of the airplane, you have a propulsion system that can accelerate both the plane and the person against gravity. The bar doesn't have a propulsion system. It can't gain net acceleration like a plane can. Remember, the bar slows down as its gravity makes the spiral speed up. You don't get an overall increase in average speed with the galactic objects like you do with an airplane using a jet engine.
Hence, from now on we must set the calculation on the arm that holds the stars and not on individual star.
Kepler's third law still applies, as all of the matter in those arms that are in orbit demands. Assuming you maintain orbital distance, you can only speed up part of the arm by causing another part of it to slow down. So you don't get to cheat Kepler's third law this way.
Therefore, the sun holds itself to the Orion arm and not to the center of the galaxy.
It holds on to both. Gravity has an unlimited range.
The dark matter imagination can't help to any star that is moving away from the arm.
It can if the dark matter is exerting so much gravity that the star doesn't reach escape velocity.
Therefore, if you want a real theory – then you must consider the arm (the bar arms and the spiral arms) as a temporary connected stars structures by gravity, and you already have full understanding on how spiral galaxy really works without a need for one particle of dark matter.
And then throw Kepler's third law away while you're at it, because this idea does not mesh with it.
So which theory is more realistic?
Is it the one that can explain the full structure of spiral galaxy including velocities and shape at each segment of the galaxy (Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms...) without any need for extra gravity, or is it a theory that is based on imagination dark matter while it can't give us any indication about the galaxy shape/structure?
The one that doesn't break the laws of physics: dark matter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/06/2022 15:25:01
Lets move step by step:
To my following question:
"The Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?"
You have replied:
That does seem to be the case.Actually you have already confirmed that the bar and the spiral arm creates a temporary structure that is there due to gravity force
So as the gravity force holds the two arms in one structure, why do you refuse to accept that the same gravity force helps the arm to holds its stars together?
Post by: Origin on 28/06/2022 15:42:03
Actually I have a theory that meets the observation by 100%.
There are 2 options here:
1. You are lying.
2. You don't know what a theory is.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/06/2022 16:20:53
So as the gravity force holds the two arms in one structure, why do you refuse to accept that the same gravity force helps the arm to holds its stars together?
I don't. What I don't accept is your claim that it somehow results in an overall speed increase that violates Kepler's third law.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/06/2022 16:59:27
Just to be sure about it.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:25:01I don't.
So as the gravity force holds the two arms in one structure, why do you refuse to accept that the same gravity force helps the arm to holds its stars together?
You fully accept that the bar arm (and spiral arm) are made out of stars that are bonded by gravity force.
What I don't accept is your claim that it somehow results in an overall speed increase that violates Kepler's third law.However, you claim that this Bar arm that is all about stars that are bonded by gravity can't increase its orbital velocity as it violates Kepler's third law.
Did I understand you correctly?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2022 17:48:17
The two options are not mutually exclusive.Actually I have a theory that meets the observation by 100%.
There are 2 options here:
1. You are lying.
2. You don't know what a theory is.
Post by: Origin on 28/06/2022 18:42:28
The two options are not mutually exclusive.You're correct, 3 options.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/06/2022 21:13:04
You fully accept that the bar arm (and spiral arm) are made out of stars that are bonded by gravity force.
And dark matter too.
However, you claim that this Bar arm that is all about stars that are bonded by gravity can't increase its orbital velocity as it violates Kepler's third law.
They orbit faster than Kepler's third law allows only if you solely count visible matter as the source of gravity. Add dark matter and the problem goes away.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2022 05:36:51
You fully accept that the bar arm (and spiral arm) are made out of stars that are bonded by gravity force.
And dark matter too.
Wow, What great news!!!
At last, after so many years you finally confirm that the stars are bonded to the arm.
I really don't care at this phase if it is due to the gravity of ordinary matter, dark matter or even supper glue.
As long as you confirm that the stars are bonded to the arms it is perfectly OK with me.
We will discuss later on how that glue really works
So, many thanks for this confirmation
Post by: Kryptid on 29/06/2022 06:23:09
As long as you confirm that the stars are bonded to the arms it is perfectly OK with me.
So long as you don't get the impression that they behave like some kind of single, solid object.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2022 08:55:47
You fully accept that the bar arm (and spiral arm) are made out of stars that are bonded by gravity force.Only in the same way that a swarm of flies is "bonded" by the air around them.
If you just wait a while you will see that they become separate.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2022 14:37:20
ThanksYou fully accept that the bar arm (and spiral arm) are made out of stars that are bonded by gravity force.Only in the same way that a swarm of flies is "bonded" by the air around them.
You compare the stars in the bar arm and the spirals arms to swarm of flies.
We clearly see that all the stars in the bar arm are bonded in shape of a two propeller arms, but you claim that we are just lucky to see them all together in this shape.
Therefore this bar is just a temporary structure that should break down very soon.
In the same token, the spiral arms should break soon
However, do you know that about 70% of the 400 Billion galaxies in the visible Universe are spirals?
Hence, out of any three galaxies in the entire universe about two are spirals.
Based on your understanding, all millions over billions spiral galaxies with their bars are there as we are so lucky that exactly when we open our eyes and look upwards in the sky we suddenly see them all with that unique propeller bar and spirals arms.
What a lovely understanding.
As you compare the stars in the bar/spirals arms to swarm of flies, what is the chance that when we observe a fly it should come with a swarm of flies in a shape of propeller?
How many times during your life time did you observe that kind of propeller' or spiral stracture based on swarm of flies?
Is it one million times one thousand times or just zero?
If you just wait a while you will see that they become separate.
Based on your understanding, how long do we have to wait until the bar would break down as the swarm of flies breaks down sooner or later?
One day, one year, One Million years, one billion years or just indefinitely?
If you see a bird flying in the air, why don't you claim that it is just swarm of flies in the air?
How long do we have to wait until you would confirm that it is a real bird and not swarm of flies?
Again: One second, One day or also indefinitely?
So long as you don't get the impression that they behave like some kind of single, solid object.Can you please explain why the bars are always at the inwards side of the ring while the spirals arms are always at the outwards side of the ring?
As you believe that the arms are there just by chance, then why that chance can't set the spirals inwards and the bar outwards?
Why we can't see even just one spiral galaxy with opposite arms in the entire universe?
Could it be that you have a severe mistake?
We clearly see the unique shape of the Bar/spiral at almost any spiral galaxy.
That bar/spiral arms maintains its shape exactly as the bird maintains its shape.
We can claim that the bird is a temporary structure as it has a limited life time and it also changes it shape during the limited live time frame.
As the bird isn't made out of swarm living cells that are just there by chance, the bar/spiral isn't made just of swarm of stars that also are just there by chance..
Therefore, as we all agree that the bird is a temporary structure made out of living cells that are bonded to each other, then why can't we understand that the bar/spiral is also one structure made out of billion stars that are bonded to each other.
If the bar/spiral was made out of stars that aren't bonded to each other (Like swarm of flies), then don't you agree that at some point this bar structure should break down as any swarm of flies breaks down at some point of time.
So, how could it be that we observe Millions and billions spirals galaxies with their fixed structure of bar?
Why the bar/spiral looks as a very stable structure?
How could it be that we have never ever observed any bar as it breaks down?
Are you sure that all of those millions or billions bars are there just by a pure chance?
There is no chance in the shape of a bird and there is no chance in the shape of the Bar or spiral arm.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/06/2022 16:50:56
Can you please explain why the bars are always at the inwards side of the ring while the spirals arms are always at the outwards side of the ring?
I don't know.
As you believe that the arms are there just by chance, then why that chance can't set the spirals inwards and the bar outwards?
Why we can't see even just one spiral galaxy with opposite arms in the entire universe?
I never said they were there by chance.
That bar/spiral arms maintains its shape exactly as the bird maintains its shape.
We can claim that the bird is a temporary structure as it has a limited life time and it also changes it shape during the limited live time frame.
As the bird isn't made out of swarm living cells that are just there by chance, the bar/spiral isn't made just of swarm of stars that also are just there by chance..
Therefore, as we all agree that the bird is a temporary structure made out of living cells that are bonded to each other, then why can't we understand that the bar/spiral is also one structure made out of billion stars that are bonded to each other.
False analogy. The structure of a bird is far more rigidly bound than the stars in a galaxy is. The stars in a galaxy are constantly moving relative to each other. The "bond" by gravity is significantly more loose. It would be better to liken the spiral shape of a galaxy to the spiral shape of a hurricane. Hurricanes aren't spirals just by chance either, but they also aren't solid, unchanging structures.
You calim that the Bar and the spiral arms are there just by chance.
I never said that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2022 17:06:39
So what is the correct answer?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:37:20I never said that.
You calim that the Bar and the spiral arms are there just by chance.
This is the most important question about the spiral galaxy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:37:20I don't know.
Can you please explain why the bars are always at the inwards side of the ring while the spirals arms are always at the outwards side of the ring?
I can promise you that if you would accept the idea that the Bars, Rings and spiral arms are made out of billions stars that are locally bonded by gravity to each other - you would know the answer for this question.
So, would you kindly give me the possibility to use this understanding of local gravity bonding?
Local gravity bonding in the bar, Local gravity bonding in the arm and local gravity bonding in the spiral arms.
You know that the dark matter isn't perfectly OK but you believe in that idea as this is currently the best offered theory.
So why do you refuse to accept much better theory that can answer any question that we might have?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2022 18:28:00
but you claim that we are just lucky to see them all together in this shape.If you look closely, you will see that I never said that.
Why did you make it up?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2022 18:49:00
False analogy. The structure of a bird is far more rigidly bound than the stars in a galaxy is. The stars in a galaxy are constantly moving relative to each other. The "bond" by gravity is significantly more loose. It would be better to liken the spiral shape of a galaxy to the spiral shape of a hurricane. Hurricanes aren't spirals just by chance either, but they also aren't solid, unchanging structures.
Actually, the bird is made out of molecules that are bonded together.
Even in a tinny bird there are billions of molecules.
Spiral arm is much bigger than a bird (about 50,000 LY), but it also has billions of stars.
So, technically the relative distance between the billions molecules in the bird to its size, could be quite similar to the distance between the stars in the spiral arm to its size.
The "bond" by gravity is strong enough to hold orbital objects for billions years.
Therefore, even if gravity bond is more loose than the molecules bond, it is still strong enough to hold the billion stars in that arm structure for billions of years.
Hence, we can't compare the spiral arm to hurricane as there is no real bonding between the gas in that hurricane.
Based on the following idea from BC:
Only in the same way that a swarm of flies is "bonded" by the air around them.It seems to me that the gas in hurricane are "Bonded" as swarm of flies are "Bonded".
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2022 18:52:36
So please, what kind of force could hold the spiral arm or the bar for millions and billions of years?but you claim that we are just lucky to see them all together in this shape.If you look closely, you will see that I never said that.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/06/2022 20:56:37
So what is the correct answer?
To what question?
I can promise you that if you would accept the idea that the Bars, Rings and spiral arms are made out of billions stars that are locally bonded by gravity to each other - you would know the answer for this question.
So, would you kindly give me the possibility to use this understanding of local gravity bonding?
I don't really get what you're asking. Yes, they are bonded, in a sense, by gravity. It's temporary and dynamic, though. The stars don't all stay in place relative to each other over time.
You know that the dark matter isn't perfectly OK
Says who?
So why do you refuse to accept much better theory that can answer any question that we might have?
Because your idea can't explain why stars are orbiting faster than they should be. Dark matter can.
Even in a tinny bird there are billions of molecules.
A huge underestimate, actually.
So, technically the relative distance between the billions molecules in the bird to its size, could be quite similar to the distance between the stars in the spiral arm to its size.
It's not even remotely close. If the Sun was 1 millimeter across, the closest star (Proxima Centauri) would be over 29 kilometers away. If a water molecule was 1 millimeter across, then, on average, another water molecule would only be about 1.15 millimeters away from it. So the distances aren't comparable at all.
Hence, we can't compare the spiral arm to hurricane as there is no real bonding between the gas in that hurricane.
I was using the hurricane as an analogy for the dynamic nature of the spiral shape of the galaxy. A hurricane changes as it rotates, just as a galaxy does.
Post by: Origin on 29/06/2022 20:59:41
So please, what kind of force could hold the spiral arm or the bar for millions and billions of years?For maybe the 20th time in this thread, gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2022 21:09:08
Gravity.So please, what kind of force could hold the spiral arm or the bar for millions and billions of years?but you claim that we are just lucky to see them all together in this shape.If you look closely, you will see that I never said that.
Specifically, the gravity of rather more mass than is visible.
So we know there's some mass there that we can't see.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/06/2022 05:39:11
Well, as long as you confirm that the stars are bonded by gravity to the arm, that is perfectly OK.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:06:39
I can promise you that if you would accept the idea that the Bars, Rings and spiral arms are made out of billions stars that are locally bonded by gravity to each other - you would know the answer for this question.
So, would you kindly give me the possibility to use this understanding of local gravity bonding?
I don't really get what you're asking. Yes, they are bonded, in a sense, by gravity. It's temporary and dynamic, though. The stars don't all stay in place relative to each other over time.
Please be aware that gravity works locally and orbital objects don't stay at the same radius for indefinitely.
Let me use the following example:
We think that the Moon orbits around the Earth, but in reality it orbits around a common center of mass with the Earth. Let's call this point as ComE.
This ComE orbits around a common center of mass with the Sun. Let's call this point as ComS
Therefore, we already see two stages of gravity bonding.
Hence, while the moon is bonded locally with ComE and this comE is bonded with ComS, then although the moon orbits locally around a common center of mass, it goes wherever the Sun goes.
In the same token, we can claim that each star in bonded locally to a center of mass that is integrated in the arm and it goes wherever the arm goes.
I agree with you that gravity bonding is dynamic and temporary.
Therefore, even in the solar system we know that there is a migration of planets and moons. Therefore, it might take few years or even few Billion years to change/break the gravity bonding but it can't last indefinitely
Therefore, we can claim that the while each star is bonded locally to the arm, this structure is dynamic and temporary.
In any case, please consider (or try to consider) each arm as a long line of stars that are bonded to each other by gravity.
Therefore:
Ring - The Ring is a long line of stars that are bonded to each other by local gravity. It is located at 3KPC from the Center.
Spiral arm - The spiral arm is a long line of stars that are bonded to each other by local gravity. It is bonded by gravity to the ring at 3KPC from the Center and it goes all the way to 15KPC. At the base (ring) its thickness is 3000LY while at the edge its thickness is 400LY.
Bar - The bar is a funneling element arm that collects the stars from the Bulge and funnels them into the spiral arms and the ring.
That is the base for spiral galaxy understanding.
Because your idea can't explain why stars are orbiting faster than they should be. Dark matter can.Please be aware that as the moon is bonded at a second gravity bonding with the Sun, it doesn't need to explain its orbital motion around the Galaxy. It just goes wherever the Sun Goes.
Therefore, there is no need for dark matter to explain the Moon motion around the galaxy at it is the task of the Sun.
In the same token, the Sun doesn't need to explain its orbital motion around the galaxy. It just goes wherever the arm goes.
Therefore, there is no need for dark matter to explain the Sun motion around the galaxy at it is the task of the spiral arm.
Now we need to understand how the arms in spiral galaxy really works and why the Bar shape is always inwards to the ring while the spiral arms are always outwards.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2022 06:58:53
Quote
Please be aware that as the moon is bonded at a second gravity bonding with the Sun, it doesn't need to explain its orbital motion around the Galaxy. It just goes wherever the Sun Goes.
Therefore, there is no need for dark matter to explain the Moon motion around the galaxy at it is the task of the Sun.
In the same token, the Sun doesn't need to explain its orbital motion around the galaxy. It just goes wherever the arm goes.
Therefore, there is no need for dark matter to explain the Sun motion around the galaxy at it is the task of the spiral arm.
No, that doesn't work. You don't get to cheat Kepler's third law like that. As I said before, the arms are not solid, rigid objects. That has important consequences for this. Go back and take a look at the graph of galactic orbital speeds. A star orbiting halfway out from the galactic center orbits at about the same speed as one at the outer edges of the galaxy.
So what happens when you look at two such stars in the same spiral arm? In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit. But both stars are orbiting at the same speed. So if we wait long enough for the innermost star to complete one orbit, the outermost star has only completed half an orbit. In other words, they are now on opposite sides of the galaxy. So they are no longer in the same spiral arm and thus we can safely conclude that the spiral arm does not just drag stars around as a single, rigid unit. The only way that would work would be if the outermost star orbited at twice the speed of the innermost star (which it quite clearly does not).
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/06/2022 12:41:30
No, that doesn't work. You don't get to cheat Kepler's third law like that.Would you kindly explain what is the problem with Kepler's third law?
As I said before, the arms are not solid, rigid objects.That message is correct for any orbital system that is bounded by gravity.
We know that planets and moons migrate in the solar system.
Therefore, would you consider the solar system as a solid/rigid system or as a temporary system?
Go back and take a look at the graph of galactic orbital speeds.OK
This is the graph
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
A star orbiting halfway out from the galactic center orbits at about the same speed as one at the outer edges of the galaxy.That is correct and it is a perfect explanation for the Bar.
So what happens when you look at two such stars in the same spiral arm? In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit. But both stars are orbiting at the same speed. So if we wait long enough for the innermost star to complete one orbit, the outermost star has only completed half an orbit. In other words, they are now on opposite sides of the galaxy. So they are no longer in the same spiral arm and thus we can safely conclude that the spiral arm does not just drag stars around as a single, rigid unit. The only way that would work would be if the outermost star orbited at twice the speed of the innermost star (which it quite clearly does not).Yes, your explanation is perfectly OK.
However, with your permission let's ignore the spiral arm and focus on the bar.
As I have stated, your following explanation is perfectly OK for the Bar:
In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit.Please look at the orbital velocity at the bar:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
We clearly see that the velocity increase linearity.
Therefore at 3KPC is about 200 Km/sec while at 1.5 KPC the velocity is 100 Km/sec.
So it fully meets your explanation that "the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit" and therefore, its orbital velocity should be twice.
Hence, there is full correlation between the exactions to the observation.
Therefore, we can consider the bar as some sort of a temporary structure that keeps its shape.
A star at a distance 2R would travel twice faster than a star that is located at R.
So far so good.
I will explain the orbital velocity of the spiral arm once the orbital velocity of the bar is clear.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2022 17:26:53
Would you kindly explain what is the problem with Kepler's third law?
Go back to that graph you posted. The red line is what Kepler's third law predicts if there was only normal matter in the galaxy. Since your model posits that there is only normal matter, then your model also predicts that red line. What we have is the green line instead. So your model is wrong.
That message is correct for any orbital system that is bounded by gravity.
We know that planets and moons migrate in the solar system.
Therefore, would you consider the solar system as a solid/rigid system or as a temporary system?
The Solar System obeys Kepler's third law (unlike your proposal). The Solar System is extremely minute compared to the galaxy, so the distances from the center of the galaxy to the Sun, Moon and Earth are all practically the same. As such, their orbital velocities around the galaxy are also practically the same and they have to travel about the same distance to make one orbit about the galaxy. That's not even remotely true for a collection of stars in a spiral arm, which span over many, many thousands of light-years.
Yes, your explanation is perfectly OK.
Then you should realize that your claim of the stars pulling each other along as one unit in the spiral arm is wrong.
As I have stated, your following explanation is perfectly OK for the Bar:
Except what I said applies to the whole galaxy, not just the bar.
A star at a distance 2R would travel twice faster than a star that is located at R.
Not further out in the Milky Way, which is where the rotation curve anomaly is. Those stars travel at the same speed, not twice the speed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2022 18:00:12
Therefore, would you consider the solar system as a solid/rigid system or as a temporary system?
Well, sometimes the Earth and Mars are on the same side of the Sun; sometimes they are on opposite sides.
Does that sound like a solid to you?
In the longer term, we know it's not stable.
This guy pointed that out over 100 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9#Three-body_problem
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/06/2022 21:19:28
Dear KryptidQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:41:30Except what I said applies to the whole galaxy, not just the bar.
As I have stated, your following explanation is perfectly OK for the Bar:
Why our scientists refuse to understand that there is an order in spiral galaxy.
It has Bulge, Bar, Ring, and the spiral arms.
There are 400 billion galaxies in the Universe and 70% of them are spiral galaxies.
Therefore, why they ignore the real meaning of this unique structure?
Those galaxies do not lie. They tell us their real story in by their shape.
You have already confirmed that you don't know why the Bar is always in the inwards side of the ring while the spiral is always in the outwards side of the ring.
Do you really care about the Bulge, Bar, ring, spiral arms shape?
If you care about it then you should know that the current theories can't give real answer for all of them. So why do you lock yourself when it comes to a possibility to get full understanding about this shape?
Go back to that graph you posted. The red line is what Kepler's third law predicts if there was only normal matter in the galaxy. Since your model posits that there is only normal matter, then your model also predicts that red line. What we have is the green line instead. So your model is wrong.well, the red line is a perfect example for the severe mistake of our scientists.
They see a star in the spiral arm and they think that it should hold itself by its own gravity to the center of the galaxy.
In other words - they totally ignore the impact of the arm.
I have proved that when the star is bonded to the Bar arm there is a perfect fit between your calculations to the observation.
Why do you ignore that prove which is based on your calculation???
Our scientists have decided that the star must orbit by itself around the galaxy.
As it can't do so, they add this dark matter imagination which can't explain the full structure of the spiral galaxy.
The Solar System is extremely minute compared to the galaxy, so the distances from the center of the galaxy to the Sun, Moon and Earth are all practically the same. As such, their orbital velocities around the galaxy are also practically the same and they have to travel about the same distance to make one orbit about the galaxy.Sorry, I don't agree with that
As the moon orbits around a common center of as with the Earth (or ComE) while this ComE orbits around the Common center with the mass, it is clear that the moon covers longer distance than the Sun for one orbital cycle around the galaxy.
Therefore, by definition its orbital velocity should be higher than the Sun (even if that increase is quite neglected).
Please see the orbital path of the moon as it orbits around the sun:
Do you think that kepler law can work directly between the Moon - Sun orbital cycle while the moon is wobbling?
Don't you agree that the answer must be - NO.
In the same token, the sun orbital path around the galaxy is very similar to the moon orbital path around the Sun as it also wobbling.
https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-205023
That wobbling path proves that there must be one more stage of gravity bonding. The bonding to the spiral arm!!!
As the moon orbits around a common center of mass that is called ComE before that comE orbits around the Sun, then the Sun must also orbit around some sort of center of mass in the arm before it orbits around the center of the galaxy.
Our scientists hope that the sun is just wobbling around the galactic plan and totally ignore the real meaning of the wobbling observation
Don't you agree that it is a SEVERE mistake from our scientists to expect that the sun orbit directly around the center of the galaxy while it wobbling?
That wobbling motion of the Sun proves that kepler law doesn't work between the sun to the center of the galaxy.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2022 21:42:23
Why our scientists refuse to understand that there is an order in spiral galaxy.
Who ever said they did?
Therefore, why they ignore the real meaning of this unique structure?
Who said they were?
Do you really care about the Bulge, Bar, ring, spiral arms shape?
If you care about it then you should know that the current theories can't give real answer for all of them.
Can you quote a scientist on that?
So why do you lock yourself when it comes to a possibility to get full understanding about this shape?
I'm not. What I'm "locking" myself from are ideas that break the laws of physics.
Sorry, I don't agree with that
Then you don't agree with science.
As the moon orbits around a common center of as with the Earth (or ComE) while this ComE orbits around the Common center with the mass, it is clear that the moon covers longer distance than the Sun for one orbital cycle around the galaxy.
Because it's orbiting more than just the galactic center. It's also orbiting the Sun and the Earth.
Therefore, by definition its orbital velocity should be higher than the Sun (even if that increase is quite neglected).
Its average orbital speed around the galactic center, specifically, isn't. You'd have to average the total speeds at all points in the Moon's orbit to get that.
Do you think that kepler law can work directly between the Moon - Sun orbital cycle while the moon is wobbling?
Don't you agree that the answer must be - NO.
No, I do not agree.
Our scientists hope that the sun is just wobbling around the galactic plan and totally ignore the real meaning of the wobbling observation
Says who?
Don't you agree that it is a SEVERE mistake from our scientists to expect that the sun orbit directly around the center of the galaxy while it wobbling?
No.
That wobbling motion of the Sun proves that kepler law doesn't work between the sun to the center of the galaxy.
No, no it does not prove that. Kepler's third law still works just fine so long as you factor in extra gravitational influences (such as the ones that cause the Sun to wobble).
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/07/2022 05:41:31
Please look again in the following image:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:28Because it's orbiting more than just the galactic center. It's also orbiting the Sun and the Earth.
As the moon orbits around a common center of as with the Earth (or ComE) while this ComE orbits around the Common center with the mass, it is clear that the moon covers longer distance than the Sun for one orbital cycle around the galaxy.
Do you confirm that the total distance that the moon cross per one year is bigger than the distance that the Earth cross per one year?
Yes or no please.
As the answer must be yes, do you confirm that the moon must move faster than the earth in order to accomplish a longer distance per year?
In the same token, do you agree that while the sun isn't moving at all the earth must orbit around it.
Therefore, while the sun orbits around the galaxy center the earth must cover longer distance than the Sun?
Hence, in one orbital cycle of the sun around the galactic center the Earth covers longer distance than the sun, while the moon covers longer distance than the earth.
Don't you agree that longer distance per a given time frame means faster velocity?
Therefore why do you refuse to understand that the average velocity of the Earth must be faster than the Sun, while the average velocity of the moon must be faster than the Earth?
So, why do you claim the following:
Its average orbital speed around the galactic center, specifically, isn't. You'd have to average the total speeds at all points in the Moon's orbit to get that.If you mean that the average velocity of the moon is the same as the sun while they orbit around the galactic center - then this is a violation of real science.
Sorry, this is a severe violation of kepler law.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:28No, no it does not prove that. Kepler's third law still works just fine so long as you factor in extra gravitational influences (such as the ones that cause the Sun to wobble).
That wobbling motion of the Sun proves that kepler law doesn't work between the sun to the center of the galaxy.
The real meaning of that "extra gravitational influences (such as the ones that cause the Sun to wobble)" is that the Sun orbits around some common center of mass, while that common center of mass orbits around the galactic center.
I'm not. What I'm "locking" myself from are ideas that break the laws of physicsThe Sun wobbling movement proves by 100% that the Sun orbits around some sort of common center of mass in the spiral arm.
As long as you lock yourself from that key understanding, you and all the science comunity won't understand how the spiral galaxy really works!!!
You have stated that you don't know why the Bar is always in the inwards side of the ring while the spiral arms are always in the outwards side of the ring.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:28Can you quote a scientist on that?
Do you really care about the Bulge, Bar, ring, spiral arms shape?
If you care about it then you should know that the current theories can't give real answer for all of them.
You all claim that the gravity with the dark matter can form the full starcture of the arms (bar, ring and spiral).
So please tell me how your invented formula for the dark matter can force all the 100% of the billions spiral galaxies in the entire universe to set always the bar in the inwards side of the ring while the spiral arms are at the outwards side?
As long as you can't answer this question - then your current theory is just useless!
Sorry, our science community totally ignore key elements in the spiral galaxy observation and therefore, they don't have even a basic clue how it really works.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/07/2022 05:57:15
Do you confirm that the total distance that the moon cross per one year is bigger than the distance that the Earth cross per one year?
Yes.
As the answer must be yes, do you confirm that the moon must move faster than the earth in order to accomplish a longer distance per year?
On average, yes.
In the same token, do you agree that while the sun isn't moving at all the earth must orbit around it.
The Sun is moving.
Therefore, while the sun orbits around the galaxy center the earth must cover longer distance than the Sun?
Yes.
Don't you agree that longer distance per a given time frame means faster velocity?
Yes.
Therefore why do you refuse to understand that the average velocity of the Earth must be faster than the Sun, while the average velocity of the moon must be faster than the Earth?
It depends on what kind of orbital speed you are talking about. The overall speed is higher, yes, but the Earth and Moon both take the same amount of time to go around the Milky Way as the Sun does. The reason is because they spend a lot of their time going in circles due to being in orbit. So even though their overall speed is higher than that of the Sun, their average speed around the galactic center is the same.
If you mean that the average velocity of the moon is the same as the sun while they orbit around the galactic center - then this is a violation of real science.
See above.
Sorry, this is a severe violation of kepler law.
Do you know what Kepler's third law is?
The real meaning of that "extra gravitational influences (such as the ones that cause the Sun to wobble)" is that the Sun orbits around some common center of mass, while that common center of mass orbits around the galactic center.
And?
The Sun wobbling movement proves by 100% that the orbits around some sort of common center of mass in the spiral arm.
As long as you lock yourself from that key understanding, you and all the science comunity won't understand how the spiral galaxy really works!!!
I never denied that. What I deny is your proposal that normal matter has enough gravity to make stars move faster in orbit than they are supposed to. That breaks Kepler's third law.
So please tell me how your invented formula for the dark matter can force all the 100% of the billions spiral galaxies in the entire universe to set always the bar in the inwards side of the ring while the spiral arms are at the outwards side?
Ask an astrophysicist.
As long as you can't answer this question - then your current theory is just useless!
There you go again, assuming that I, an individual moderator on a discussion board, am the be-all-end-all of modern scientific knowledge about galaxies...
Sorry, our science community totally ignore key elements in the spiral galaxy observation and therefore, they don't have even a basic clue how it really works.
It's better than yours, which breaks the laws of physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/07/2022 09:56:49
Did you set the the following calculation for a solid arm?
As I said before, the arms are not solid, rigid objects...Do you reconfirm that in a solid arm "the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit."
So what happens when you look at two such stars in the same spiral arm? In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit.
Yes or No, please?
Do you confirm the Bar arm meets your calculation for solid arm?
So, as the Bar arm looks solid, Behave solid & meets you calculation for solid arm by 100% - then why do you claim that it can't be solid?
Are you sure that only astrophysicist can approve this observation?
Ask an astrophysicist.Hence, if that astrophysicist would tell you that the Bar arm is solid as it fully meets the calculation for solid arm - would you believe him?
So where can we find that astrophysicist?
If one day you would find his address, please ask him to call.
We need him.
One more question;
If one day as you go out from your home, you observe something that looks like a lion.
It has a body of a lion, a head of a lion a voice of a lion a smell of a lion and it run and jump as a lion directly to your location.
What would you do?
1. As you had been informed by the experts that there are no lions in your city, you would assume that it is just a swarm of flies that only looks like a lion. Therefore you would stay where you are and hope that those flies would escape from this lion structure.
2. Call the expert (this time it can't be astrophysicist) to get his advice if this structure represents real lion.
3. Run for your life.
Please take your time. You still have few more second before the impact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2022 13:35:01
They see a star in the spiral arm and they think that it should hold itself by its own gravity to the center of the galaxy.Please provide evidence that they think that , or anything like it.
In other words - they totally ignore the impact of the arm.
Post by: Origin on 01/07/2022 13:56:19
Do you reconfirm that in a solid arm "the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit."It is difficult to have a science related discussion with someone who does not even know what a solid is.
Yes or No, please?
Do you confirm the Bar arm meets your calculation for solid arm?
So, as the Bar arm looks solid, Behave solid & meets you calculation for solid arm by 100% - then why do you claim that it can't be solid?
Are you sure that only astrophysicist can approve this observation?
Hence, if that astrophysicist would tell you that the Bar arm is solid as it fully meets the calculation for solid arm - would you believe him?Of course not.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/07/2022 17:44:48
Do you reconfirm that in a solid arm "the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit."
Yes or No, please?
Do you confirm the Bar arm meets your calculation for solid arm?
Yes, but that isn't the only requirement for something to be solid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
So, as the Bar arm looks solid, Behave solid & meets you calculation for solid arm by 100% - then why do you claim that it can't be solid?
Because it's mostly made of gas.
Are you sure that only astrophysicist can approve this observation?
An astrophysicist would know that it's mostly gas.
Hence, if that astrophysicist would tell you that the Bar arm is solid as it fully meets the calculation for solid arm - would you believe him?
I'd question his merits as an astrophysicist, as it is, again, mostly gas.
So where can we find that astrophysicist?
I have no idea where you'd find an astrophysicist who would state that something made mostly of gas is solid.
One more question;
If one day as you go out from your home, you observe something that looks like a lion.
It has a body of a lion, a head of a lion a voice of a lion a smell of a lion and it run and jump as a lion directly to your location.
What would you do?
1. As you had been informed by the experts that there are no lions in your city, you would assume that it is just a swarm of flies that only looks like a lion. Therefore you would stay where you are and hope that those flies would escape from this lion structure.
2. Call the expert (this time it can't be astrophysicist) to get his advice if this structure represents real lion.
3. Run for your life.
Please take your time. You still have few more second before the impact.
This is a ridiculous analogy. Galactic structures don't "look" solid. Again, they are mostly gas and we know this.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/07/2022 18:51:04
Thanks for your honest answer.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:56:49Yes, but that isn't the only requirement for something to be solid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
Do you reconfirm that in a solid arm "the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit."
Yes or No, please?
Do you confirm the Bar arm meets your calculation for solid arm?
So, based on the orbital velocity of the stars in the bar arm, you fully confirm that the stars there meets your calculation for solid arm.
This is very important confirmation and I would like to thank you for that!
However, I called the bar "solid" but you don't like that name.
So let me ask you differently:
If the bar behave as a stable structure (not solid) and it looks like a stable structure (bar everywhere) - then why it can't be considered as stable structure?
You claim that it is due to the gas:
Galactic structures don't "look" solid. Again, they are mostly gas and we know this.Let's verify the issue with the gas:
Do you agree that our sun is made out of gas (mainly: Hydrogen & helium)
So does it mean that the Sun has no gravity force?
What's wrong with gas that is concentrated in a star?
Don't you agree that this gas star that is called Sun can hold all the planets and moons around it for billions of years by simple gravity force?
So, what's wrong with the gravity force of gas or gas stars?
Do you think that once a star gets into the bar its gravity force is cancelled?
What is the problem that prevents from the gas stars to form a stable bar structure that holds itself by mutual gravitational attraction?
Please look at the following image of M80:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster#/media/File:A_Swarm_of_Ancient_Stars_-_GPN-2000-000930.jpg
"M80 contains hundreds of thousands of stars, all held together by their mutual gravitational attraction."
Why do you give a permission to those hundreds of thousands of stars to held together by their mutual gravitational attraction, but you prevent from the same "mutual gravitational attraction" to work at the bar?
Post by: Origin on 01/07/2022 19:16:42
Thanks for your honest answer.Its ironic that you say thanks for the honesty and then immediately dishonesty imply that kriptid agreed with your silly conjecture.
So, based on the orbital velocity of the stars in the bar arm, you fully confirm that the stars there meets your calculation for solid arm.
However, I called the bar "solid" but you don't like that name.Since that is wrong it is not surprising.
If the bar behave as a stable structureIt doesn't.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/07/2022 19:47:36
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/07/2022 20:12:19
Why are you arguing about this "bar" thing anyway? It already follows the predicted Keplerian curve on the graphThe bar is a key element in the spiral galaxy.
Don't you agree that It follows the predicted Keplerian curve on the graph for a stable bar structure?
However, in this case, I can claim that there is no need for dark matter to explain the Bar orbital velocity.
That could kill the idea of the dark matter.
So, you all reject this clear observation in order to keep the dark matter imagination.
However, you can't escape from the reality
1. The bar looks stable
2. The orbital calculation proves that the Bar behaves as a stable structure
Therefore it must be stable structure and there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at the Bar.
I don't know what you think is a mystery about it.The mystery is that you are not willing to accept the meaning of the orbital velocity at the bar.
Why do you insist to ignore the observation and orbital calculation of the Bar?
Are you really afraid that there will be no need for dark matter at the Bar?
If this bar was made out of Iron, would you accept the idea that it is stable?
So, can we agree that based on the orbital calculation it should be stable.
But, you don't accept the calculation as the bar is made out of stars and based on your understanding stars can't be hold together by their mutual gravitational attraction as they are made out of gas.
Correct?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/07/2022 20:49:52
However, in this case, I can claim that there is no need for dark matter to explain the Bar orbital velocity.
That could kill the idea of the dark matter.
No, because it's needed for the outer regions of the galaxy.
Therefore it must be stable structure and there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at the Bar.
I never said that dark matter was needed for the bar.
The mystery is that you are not willing to accept the meaning of the orbital velocity at the bar.
Why do you insist to ignore the observation and orbital calculation of the Bar?
Who said I was?
Are you really afraid that there will be no need for dark matter at the Bar?
Nope.
If this bar was made out of Iron, would you accept the idea that it is stable?
If it was made out of iron, its properties would be entirely different than they are now.
But, you don't accept the calculation as the bar is made out of stars and based on your understanding stars can't be hold together by their mutual gravitational attraction as they are made out of gas.
Correct?
Metastable is probably the better word.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/07/2022 21:19:28
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:12:19I never said that dark matter was needed for the bar.
Therefore it must be stable structure and there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at the Bar.
So can we agree that the dark matter is not needed for the bar, but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/07/2022 22:35:28
but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?
Yes.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2022 23:48:33
The bar is a key element in the spiral galaxy.Yes.
But it isn't solid.
The bar looks stableSo does a picture of a swarm of bees
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 06:31:47
Thanksbut you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?Yes.
So, you think that the dark matter is needed for the spiral arms.
We will discuss latter on about the spiral arms.
However, I hope that by now you fully confirm that there is no need for dark matter in the bar as all the hundreds of thousands/millions of stars there are bonded together in that Bar shape by their mutual gravitational attraction.
Well, in a swarm of bees they are bonded together by their common wish to stay together.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:19So does a picture of a swarm of bees
The bar looks stable
Stars have no wish.
They are bonded together by their mutual gravitational attraction
We already know how the Globular_cluster that is called M80 works:
Please look at the following image of M80:Each star in this Globular_cluster orbits around its common center of mass that had been set by the mutual gravitational attraction of all the other stars in that cluster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster#/media/File:A_Swarm_of_Ancient_Stars_-_GPN-2000-000930.jpg
"M80 contains hundreds of thousands of stars, all held together by their mutual gravitational attraction."
This is the formula for the Com of collection of particles/orbital objects/stars
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cm.html
As the cluster has a spherical shape, there is a possibility that all the stars orbits around the same Com.
However, the Bar has a different shape. It looks like a long arm.
Therefore, in this case, while each star in the bar orbits around its unique Com, those Coms are bonded together by the mutual gravitational attraction.
Hence, while each star orbits around its Com, the bar arm is so stable.
Therefore, I agree with you that the stars in the bar looks like swarm of bees, however, while the bees stay together by their common wish, the stars stay together by their common center of mass due to the mutual gravitational attraction.
Is it clear?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 09:07:43
https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/06/13/new-evidence-that-all-stars-are-born-in-pairs/
New evidence that all stars are born in pairs.
"The new assertion is based on a radio survey of a giant molecular cloud filled with recently formed stars in the constellation Perseus, and a mathematical model that can explain the Perseus observations only if all sunlike stars are born with a companion."
The Sun also might have a companion but it had not been found yet:
"Astronomers have even searched for a companion to our sun, a star dubbed Nemesis because it was supposed to have kicked an asteroid into Earth’s orbit that collided with our planet and exterminated the dinosaurs. It has never been found."
In this case, it is expected that stars with companion would orbit around their Common center of mass and that Com would be bonded to the arm by the mutual gravitational attraction from all the star in the arm.
There is a possibility that Nemesis is some sort of dark star or just a BH that we can't see.
If it is real, Nemesis is responsible for the wobbling motion of the Sun as they both orbit around their mutual Common center of mass while bond themselves in the Orion arm by the mutual gravitational attraction with all the other stars in the arm.
Please look at the motion of the solar system in the galaxy.
https://www.pinterest.es/pin/452752568775036247/
It looks almost identical to the Moon motion around the Sun.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 10:21:52
https://bhavanajagat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/whole-cookie-whole-revolution-rotation-of-galaxy.png
Each star is moving in other direction.
Based on this image you might think that all of them would shortly move away from each other.
However, that isn't the case.
If I remember correctly the relative motion of those stars is in the range of about 20Km/s.
Hence, each star in this local solar neighborhood orbits around its Com at about that velocity, while they all are bonded by the mutual gravitational attraction with all the other stars in the arm and they orbit around the galaxy at about 220Km/s.
Therefore, they behave as swarms of bees but instead of just common wish to stay together, they share a gravitational attraction that force them to stay together.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2022 12:01:27
Well, in a swarm of bees they are bonded together by their common wish to stay together.Which would make them more like a liquid than a solid, wouldn't it?
A liquid has no fixed shape, and nor does a swarm.
So will you please stop trying to say that a galaxy (or any part of it bigger than a planet) is solid.
It just isn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2022 12:02:40
Therefore, they behave as swarms of bees but instead of just common wish to stay together, they share a gravitational attraction that force them to stay together.And a swarm of bees is not a solid, is it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 14:49:47
How can you compare a swarm of bees to liquid?Well, in a swarm of bees they are bonded together by their common wish to stay together.Which would make them more like a liquid than a solid, wouldn't it?
A liquid has no fixed shape, and nor does a swarm..
Each bee comes with integrated wings and mind.
It can fly to the left or to the right based on her personal wish.
Therefore, if the bees wish to establish a fixed shape - they can do it.
Liquid has no mind, no wish, no wings and therefore it can't set any fixed structure.
Stars also have no mind, no wish, no wings but they have gravity.
That gravity can bond them in a fixed shape as M80
Please look at the following image of M80:All the stars there are bonded together by their mutual gravitational attraction and set the fixed shape of the Globular_cluster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster#/media/File:A_Swarm_of_Ancient_Stars_-_GPN-2000-000930.jpg
"M80 contains hundreds of thousands of stars, all held together by their mutual gravitational attraction."
So, how can you claim that this fixed shape of Globular_cluster is just liqued.
One more issue, if you think about liquid, why you didn't use this example at the first stage instead of your imagination about swarm of bees or flies?
Is it just to confuse the other side?
Post by: Origin on 02/07/2022 16:12:00
All the stars there are bonded together by their mutual gravitational attraction and set the fixed shape of the Globular_cluster.Of course no one said it is liquid, just more bad faith arguments on your part. The stars are moving in the globular cluster so the shape is not fixed.
So, how can you claim that this fixed shape of Globular_cluster is just liqued.
Is it just to confuse the other side?It seems hard to imagine you could be any more confused
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 16:54:45
The stars are moving in the globular cluster so the shape is not fixed.Globular cluster has a fixed spherical shape. It has a fixed structure although the stars are in orbital motion in that cluster.
If you take a section from the Bar arm or the spiral arm and set it outside the galactic disc, then it would be transformed into that globular cluster.
So all of those globular clusters represent section from the spiral arms which had been disconnected from the arm. (Mainly from the edge of the spiral arm).
The arm works on the same gravity laws as M80.
Therefore, if we could take M80 and replace it back at the bar or at the spiral arm it would get back the arm shape.
Technically, if we could grab by gravity one side of M80 and spin it, you would also get the arm shape.
We will discuss later on how the arms really work.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2022 17:00:13
How can you compare a swarm of bees to liquid?Because it will flow round an obstacle - unlike a solid.
Therefore, if the bees wish to establish a fixed shape - they can do it.But they don't. So your "point" is meaningless, isn't it?
Liquid has no mind, no wish, no wings and therefore it can't set any fixed structure.And the same is true of a galaxy of stars.
You just pointed out that I'm correct to say that they have characteristics in common.
That gravity can bond them in a fixed shape as M80It's still not a fixed shape is it?
Why are you pretending it is.
If it was solid, you couldn't fly a ship through it,could you?
If it was solid, the different bits couldn't be moving WRT eachother, could they?
Is it just to confuse the other side?I don't need to "confuse" the other side if they can't distinguish a gas from a solid.
You are already confused, aren't you?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 17:18:48
If it was solid, you couldn't fly a ship through it,could you?Why do you keep calling it "solid"?
We don't use this word any more.
Kryptid called it Metastable and I really like it
Metastable is probably the better word.Please look at the following diagram:
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-stable-and-metastable/
A represents the metastable stage, while C represents the stable stage.
Therefore, M80 is currently at its stable stage.
However, if you set that M80 at the arm (Bar or spiral) it would get the arm stracture and it would be at its Metastable stage.
So, the arm shape is not a stable shape but Metastable shape.
Many thanks to Kryptid for this word!!!
Post by: Kryptid on 02/07/2022 17:30:35
Hence, each star in this local solar neighborhood orbits around its Com at about that velocity, while they all are bonded by the mutual gravitational attraction with all the other stars in the arm and they orbit around the galaxy at about 220Km/s.
I've already told you why that doesn't work.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 17:43:26
Yes it worksHence, each star in this local solar neighborhood orbits around its Com at about that velocity, while they all are bonded by the mutual gravitational attraction with all the other stars in the arm and they orbit around the galaxy at about 220Km/s.
I've already told you why that doesn't work.
We will discuss it as we get to the spiral arms
However, currently we are at the bar stage and we already know that there is no need for dark matter for the bar operation. We also know that the arms (Bar or spiral) are just metastable stage of globular cluster.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/07/2022 17:46:33
Yes it works
The stars can't stay in the arm for even a single orbit around the galaxy:
So what happens when you look at two such stars in the same spiral arm? In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit. But both stars are orbiting at the same speed. So if we wait long enough for the innermost star to complete one orbit, the outermost star has only completed half an orbit. In other words, they are now on opposite sides of the galaxy. So they are no longer in the same spiral arm and thus we can safely conclude that the spiral arm does not just drag stars around as a single, rigid unit. The only way that would work would be if the outermost star orbited at twice the speed of the innermost star (which it quite clearly does not).
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 19:50:08
The stars can't stay in the arm for even a single orbit around the galaxy:Ok
As you insist to discuss about the spiral arms:
We already know that the Bar funnels stars from the Bulge to the spiral arms and the ring.
Therefore, the spiral arms get fresh delivery of stars from the Bar.
Due to this delivery the stars in the arms are drifted outwards without disconnecting from the ring and beark the spiral shape.
please be aware that at the base (ring) the thickness is 3000 LY while at the edge of the arm it is just 400LY.
The inwards radius is 3KPC (about 9000LY) while outwards radius is 15KPC (50,000LY).
However, due to the spiral shape of the arm its length could is much longer than that (about 50,000LY to 100,000LY?)
We already know that the spiral arm is all about a metastable stage of a globular cluster.
However, to set this kind of 100,000 Ly arm you need at least 1,000 or even 10,000 globular clusters as M80.
Now think about long lines of globular clusters that are connected to each other by gravity and form that metastable shape of the spiral arm.
The glubular cluster that is located at the outermost side of the arm is under the stronget forces due to its furthest location and therefore the thickness of the arm at the edge is just 400LY.
At some point it would be disconnected from the arm and would be ejected from the galactic disc.
The section that is disconnected from the arm would form a globular cluster shape
However, in the same time new stars stream would be added to the spiral arm from the Bar.
Therefore, when we look at the arm we won't see any difference as it keeps its very long spiral shape.
However, due to the migration of stars from the bar to the edge, the fixed orbital velocity would be maintained.
The idea is that for any given time frame each star in the spiral arm would cross the same distance regardless from its location in the spiral arm.
Based on the spiral shape we can easily extract the drifting outwards velocity of stars that is requested to maintain the shape of the spiral arm.
I agree that stars in the spiral arms can stay in the arm for very few galactic orbital cycles before they would be ejected from the arm.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2022 20:04:53
Why do you keep calling it "solid"?I don't.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/07/2022 20:19:00
The glubular cluster that is located at the outermost side of the arm is under the stronget forces due to its furthest location
How does that put it under the strongest forces?
At some point it would be disconnected from the arm and would be ejected from the galactic disc.
Not at a mere 220 km/s, it won't be. The escape velocity of the Milky Way is over 500 km/s.
However, due to the migration of stars from the bar to the edge, the fixed orbital velocity would be maintained.
That's not how that works. As they get further away from the central source of gravity, they should slow down (if normal matter was all there was in the galaxy). So your proposal is (still) wrong.
I agree that stars in the spiral arms can stay in the arm for very few galactic orbital cycles before they would be ejected from the arm.
Much less than one.
Post by: Origin on 02/07/2022 21:50:14
We already know that the spiral arm is all about a metastable stage of a globular cluster.Nope.
The glubular cluster that is located at the outermost side of the arm is under the stronget forces due to its furthest location and therefore the thickness of the arm at the edge is just 400LY.Most globular clusters are not located in arms of the galaxy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2022 03:19:18
How did you get the 500 Km/secQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:50:08Not at a mere 220 km/s, it won't be. The escape velocity of the Milky Way is over 500 km/s.
At some point it would be disconnected from the arm and would be ejected from the galactic disc.
Is it based on the dark matter imagination?
If so, please eliminate the dark matter and reset the calculation.
That's not how that works. As they get further away from the central source of gravity, they should slow down (if normal matter was all there was in the galaxy). So your proposal is (still) wrong.You still miss the main activity of the arm.
The stars in the arm don't care about the central source of gravity as they only care about the arm.
They hold themselves to the arm and goes wherever the arm goes.
This is identical to the Erath/moon motion.
They really don't care about their motion in the galaxy.
They just hold sun by gravity and they go wherever the sun goes.
In the same token, the sun just holds itself in the Orion arm and goes wherever the arm goes.
Well, if the diameter of the arm was fixed then this answer was correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:50:08Much less than one.
I agree that stars in the spiral arms can stay in the arm for very few galactic orbital cycles before they would be ejected from the arm.
However, we know that the diameter of the arm at the base is 3000LY while at the edge it is 400LY.
This is similar to a pipe that goes narrow at the edge.
If the water comes in at a radius of R1 and goes out at smaller radius of R2 then the water flow should be increased by:
(R1 / R2) ^2
Hence the drifting flow of the stars is increasing as we move further away from the base.
The diameter of the arm at our location is 1000LY
So the radius of the arm had been already decreased by 3
Therefore, the drifting flow of the stars would be increased by 3^2 = 9
At the edge, the diameter is only 400LY. Therefore, the drifting flow would be increased by:
(3000/400)^2 = 56.4
That increase in the drifting flow of stars in the arm, would give the arm the possibility to keep the stars for longer orbital cycle around the galactic center.
However, when the arm gets so narrow its gravity bonding force is decreasing dramatically.
As its diameter gets to 400LY it actually gets to its maximal ability to hold the star in the arm.
It can't be narrower than that as the gravity force of the arm is too low and it can't hold the stars any more.
Therefore, the stars would be ejected from the arm and set the globular cluster shape that we see around the galaxy.
.
That is correctQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:50:08Most globular clusters are not located in arms of the galaxy.
The globular cluster that is located at the outermost side of the arm is under the strongest forces due to its furthest location and therefore the thickness of the arm at the edge is just 400LY.
Theoretically, a global cluster in the arm would be considered in its metastable phase and it would form the arm shape.
Once it would be disconnected from the arm, it would get its stable spherical shape
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2022 04:37:03
How did you get the 500 Km/sec
I looked it up.
Is it based on the dark matter imagination?
If so, please eliminate the dark matter and reset the calculation.
You can derive the escape velocity based on the orbital velocity of the outermost stars in the galaxy (and therefore Kepler's third law).
The stars in the arm don't care about the central source of gravity as they only care about the arm.
Absolutely wrong. If that was true, then all the stars in the spiral arm would drift away from the galaxy. Gravity is a force with unlimited range.
They hold themselves to the arm and goes wherever the arm goes.
That's not possible because of this:
So what happens when you look at two such stars in the same spiral arm? In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit. But both stars are orbiting at the same speed. So if we wait long enough for the innermost star to complete one orbit, the outermost star has only completed half an orbit. In other words, they are now on opposite sides of the galaxy. So they are no longer in the same spiral arm and thus we can safely conclude that the spiral arm does not just drag stars around as a single, rigid unit. The only way that would work would be if the outermost star orbited at twice the speed of the innermost star (which it quite clearly does not).
Because the innermost stars and the outermost stars are travelling at about the same orbital speed, but the innermost stars have much less distance travel around the Milky Way than the outermost stars, the stars that are closer to the center of the galaxy are constantly getting further and further away from those stars further out. So those stars absolutely do not "go wherever the arm goes".
This is identical to the Erath/moon motion.
That's not even remotely close. Both the Earth and the Moon are the same average distance from the center of the galaxy and take the same amount of time to complete one trip around the galaxy. The stars in the spiral arm are spread over many thousands of light-years away from the galactic center. Unlike the Earth-Moon system, they take a widely varying amount of time to go around the galaxy.
They really don't care about their motion in the galaxy.
They just hold sun by gravity and they go wherever the sun goes.
Because their average distance to the galactic center is the same as that of the Sun. They all three take the same amount of time to complete one orbit around the galaxy. As pointed out before, this is not true of the stars in the spiral arm. Your proposal simply does not work.
In the same token, the sun just holds itself in the Orion arm and goes wherever the arm goes.
The Earth and Moon stay with the Sun because there are in orbit around the Sun. The whole of the stars in the spiral arms are not in orbit around each other.
Well, if the diameter of the arm was fixed then this answer was correct.
It's correct. Period:
So what happens when you look at two such stars in the same spiral arm? In order to complete one orbit around the galaxy, the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit. But both stars are orbiting at the same speed. So if we wait long enough for the innermost star to complete one orbit, the outermost star has only completed half an orbit. In other words, they are now on opposite sides of the galaxy. So they are no longer in the same spiral arm and thus we can safely conclude that the spiral arm does not just drag stars around as a single, rigid unit. The only way that would work would be if the outermost star orbited at twice the speed of the innermost star (which it quite clearly does not).
This is similar to a pipe that goes narrow at the edge.
If the water comes in at a radius of R1 and goes out at smaller radius of R2 then the water flow should be increased by:
(R1 / R2) ^2
Very poor analogy. The stars in a galactic arm don't behave even remotely like water flowing through a narrowing pipe. There are no giant pipes constraining the movement of stars. They are in a near-vacuum.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2022 05:05:08
Why do you insist to ignore the structure of the spiral arm?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:19:18Very poor analogy. The stars in a galactic arm don't behave even remotely like water flowing through a narrowing pipe. There are no giant pipes constraining the movement of stars. They are in a near-vacuum.
This is similar to a pipe that goes narrow at the edge.
If the water comes in at a radius of R1 and goes out at smaller radius of R2 then the water flow should be increased by:
(R1 / R2) ^2
Why?
Do you confirm that the thickness of the arm at the base (3KPC) is 3000 LY, at our location (8KPC) it is 1000LY and at the edge (15KPC) it is 400LY?
YES or NO please
If yes, how can you explain that structure of the arm? Why it gets narrower? Or you just don't care?
The Earth and Moon stay with the Sun because there are in orbit around the Sun. The whole of the stars in the spiral arms are not in orbit around each other.Sorry, you totally misunderstand how the gravity works at a glubular cluster that is located in its Metastable phase while it is in the arm.
So, please look again at M80:
Please look at the following image of M80:Do you confirm that each one of those hundreds of thousands of stars must orbit around its Common center of mass in order to hold itself in that Globular cluster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster#/media/File:A_Swarm_of_Ancient_Stars_-_GPN-2000-000930.jpg
"M80 contains hundreds of thousands of stars, all held together by their mutual gravitational attraction."
Yes or no please?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2022 05:13:34
Why do you insist to ignore the structure of the spiral arm?
Why?
I'm not. I'm pointing out that your analogy isn't remotely sensible. Spiral arms aren't contained inside of pipes.
Do you confirm that the thickness of the arm at the base (3KPC) is 3000 LY, at our location (8KPC) it is 1000LY and at the edge (15KPC) it is 400LY?
YES or NO please
I haven't looked it up, but it sounds reasonable so I'll say "yes" for now.
If yes, how can you explain that structure of the arm? Why it gets narrower? Or you just don't care?
I don't know, but it sure isn't because it's flowing like water through a narrowing pipe.
Sorry, you totally misunderstand how the gravity works at a glubular cluster
Globular clusters aren't galactic arms.
Do you confirm that each one of those hundreds of thousands of stars must orbit around its Common center of mass in order to hold itself in that Globular cluster?
Yes or no please?
Yes, but like I said, globular clusters aren't galactic arms. A spiral arm might contain a globular cluster, but that's not all a spiral arm is.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2022 21:41:37
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:05:08I haven't looked it up, but it sounds reasonable so I'll say "yes" for now.
Do you confirm that the thickness of the arm at the base (3KPC) is 3000 LY, at our location (8KPC) it is 1000LY and at the edge (15KPC) it is 400LY?
YES or NO please
Spiral arms aren't contained inside of pipes.Spiral arms are made out of Gas and Stars.
Our scientists tell us the diameter of that arm and it goes thinner as we go further away from the base.
Therefore, don't you agree that technically it has a pipe shape?
As you don't know, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:05:08I don't know, but it sure isn't because it's flowing like water through a narrowing pipe.
If yes, how can you explain that structure of the arm? Why it gets narrower? Or you just don't care?
You don't know:
Why there is a ring
Why the bar is always in the inner side of the ring,
Yhy the Bar has a propeller shape
Why there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at the bar.
Why the spiral arms are always at the outwards side of the ring,
Why it gets thinner at we move further away from the base
Why it has always spiral shape (why not bar shape)?
But you know that what I say is just incorrect.
I have a simple question for you:
Do you reconfirm that there is no need for the Dark matter in the Bar?
If so, do you confirm that it was a fatal error from our scientists to offer dark matter also for the Bar?
How can you agree with the logic that for one key section - the bar section (up to 3KPC) there is no need for dark matter while as our scientists can't explain the spiral arm based on ordinary matter - then suddenly the dark matter pop up?
Sorry - the bar by itself proves that there is no need for dark matter. Not in the bar and not in the spiral arm
If you don't agree with my explanation - then please look for better explanation that is based on ordinary matter and not on the imagination dark matter.
I offer you a solution for how the spiral can work without dark matter and you reject this explanation without knowing how it really works.
Is there any possibility for you to evaluate my explanation based on the same level that you evaluate the message from our scientists?
Or is it just impossible request as whatever our scientists say is always correct (even if we prove that their message is just incorrect (as there is no need for dark matter for the bar and no solution for all the questions) while whatever I say is always incorrect (even if it meets the observation by 100%)?
Post by: Origin on 03/07/2022 22:13:02
Or is it just impossible request as whatever our scientists say is always correct (even if we prove that their message is just incorrect (as there is no need for dark matter for the bar and no solution for all the questions) while whatever I say is always incorrect (even if it meets the observation by 100%)?What is your explanation that meets the observation by 100%?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2022 01:08:21
Therefore, don't you agree that technically it has a pipe shape?
Only vaguely. I have never looked at the spiral arm of a galaxy and thought, "that's shaped like a pipe". "Pipe-shaped" does not imply "behaves like a pipe". A carrot is shaped like a narrowing pipe, but it sure doesn't act like one. Besides, pipes have a well-defined edge, whereas the spiral arms do not.
As you don't know, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?
Non-sequitur. Not knowing the entire explanation for something doesn't mean that just anything is possible. For example, I don't know if there is life native to Mars, but I know that if there is, it doesn't take the form of little green men. The reason is that there isn't enough oxygen in Mars' atmosphere to support that kind of complex life. Likewise, I know your pipe explanation is incorrect because an increase in pressure is what causes water flowing through a narrowing pipe to speed up. Since the pressure in interstellar space is practically zero, that explanation cannot possibly apply to stars in the spiral arm.
But you know that what I say is just incorrect.
Right.
Do you reconfirm that there is no need for the Dark matter in the Bar?
If so, do you confirm that it was a fatal error from our scientists to offer dark matter also for the Bar?
There is no need for it to be there in the sense that normal matter has enough gravity to explain it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. It's not a fatal error.
How can you agree with the logic that for one key section - the bar section (up to 3KPC) there is no need for dark matter while as our scientists can't explain the spiral arm based on ordinary matter - then suddenly the dark matter pop up?
I never said that dark matter was only in the spiral arms: just that dark matter can solve the rotation curve anomaly in the spiral arms.
Sorry - the bar by itself proves that there is no need for dark matter.
That's like saying that the fact that an electric vehicle doesn't need gasoline, then no other cars should need gasoline either.
I offer you a solution for how the spiral can work without dark matter
Your explanation breaks the laws of physics (Kepler's third law, in particular) and makes no sense (stars and gases in the vacuum of space do not behave like water under pressure moving through a narrowing pipe).
Is there any possibility for you to evaluate my explanation based on the same level that you evaluate the message from our scientists?
I am: yours breaks the laws of physics, their's doesn't.
Or is it just impossible request as whatever our scientists say is always correct
It isn't always correct and I'm not pretending that it is. That doesn't mean dark matter is wrong.
even if we prove that their message is just incorrect
Let me know when you've done that.
while whatever I say is always incorrect (even if it meets the observation by 100%)?
What you say doesn't come close to meeting observation by 100%. There are no giant pipes in space that the spiral arms are moving through.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2022 05:03:57
There is no need for it to be there in the sense that normal matter has enough gravity to explain it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. It's not a fatal error.So we all agree that there s no need for dark matter in the Bar.
However, you claim that the dark matter is there without any need to be there won't effect the bar.
You offer the following explanation:
That's like saying that the fact that an electric vehicle doesn't need gasoline, then no other cars should need gasoline either.I claim that your example is just incorrect.
Dark matter isn't gasoline - it is an engine or jet engine by itself.
How can you tell the dark matter to work at the spiral while based on your explanation it covers the whole galaxy?
So how can you tell it to work at the spiral and ignore the bar?
Sorry - If you belive that the dark matter has an impact on stars in the spiral arms then it also must have an impact on stars in the Bar.
I never said that dark matter was only in the spiral arms: just that dark matter can solve the rotation curve anomaly in the spiral arms.Let's make it clear - the rotation curve anomaly exists ONLY in the spiral arms
Therefore I hope that you fully agree, that this dark matter is ONLY needed to solve the rotation curve anomaly in the spiral arms.
So, how could it be that you are using a something that is called dark matter that has a sever impact on any star in the galaxy and force it to work on the stars at the spiral arms but not on the stars in the Bar.
Do you have some sort of a switch that you can set it on and of?
On for the spiral, off for the bar.
Would you kindly explain how that switch really works?
Don't you agree that the dark matter works as sort of a jet engin as it must speed up any star at the spiral from 3KPC to 15KPC.
However, the bar also gets to 3KPC.
Our scientists OBSERVE that the spiral arms is fully connected to the Bar exactly at 3KPC - I have PROVED IT.
So how can you tell the dark matter to work on a star that is located at 3KPC in the spiral arm and not work on a nearby star that is still located at 3KPC in the bar.
Therefore, your example about the an electric vehicle that doesn't need gasoline is just irrelevant.
You have to explain how an electric vehicle could still work while we connect a Jet engine to that vehicle that works constantly.
Actually, while I write this message I have a brilliant idea for our scientists.
I hope that we all agree that our scientists don't have a basic clue what is the dark matter, how it had been formed and why it came to save the spiral galaxies in the entire universe.
They just hope that this dark matter exists as a sphere around the center of the galaxy at different densities which is based on a very specific formula that they have invented.
For each spiral galaxy there is a need for different density of dark matter and therefore, different formula is needed for all the millions of a billions spiral galaxies.
Please also be aware that the dark matter should move with the MW galaxy while it cross the space at 600 Km/s.
It can't move from the center of the galaxy.
Any movement of the dark matter from the center, would break the spiral arms and our scientists would be very upset.
So, at least so far we fully agree that the dark matter fully obey to the wish of our scientists
I wonder, why there are still 30% galaxies which are not spiral.
How could it be that the dark matter has neglected those poor galaxies?
I also wonder what would happen to the dark matter after the collision between two spiral galaxies?
In any case, as we discuss about imagination dark matter that we can't see, I have a brilliant advice to our scientists.
Instead of asking the dark matter cover the whole galaxy and distinguish between a star at 3KPC that is located at the bar to the other one at 3KPC that is located in the spiral arm, why can't we just invent a formula that works only at the spiral arm?
So, this dark matter would be able to bond the stars in the spiral arm and stretch it as we wish.
Therefore, wherever you claim that my explanation is incorrect:
I would use the magic dark matter to do the job.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:41:37Right.
But you know that what I say is just incorrect.
I can invent the formula for the dark matter that can do whatever I wish it to do.
As it works only at the spiral arm, it won't have any negative impact on the bar.
So please, why our scientists can't use my idea of dark matter that is only focus in the spiral arms in order to solve the rotation curve anomaly in those arms without any negative impact on the bar?
What you say doesn't come close to meeting observation by 100%. There are no giant pipes in space that the spiral arms are moving through.That replay shows that you refuse to understand my message for how the spiral arms work.
Therefore, are you ready to accept my explanation about the spiral arms while I'm using the dark matter imagination to support my wish?
Or it is forbidden for me to use the dark matter as only our key scientists have the permission to use it whenever is needed,and at any formula that they wish/invent as my name is Dave and not Einstein?.
PS
I 'm living today outside the country for few days and may not have time to respond
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2022 05:48:16
How can you tell the dark matter to work at the spiral while based on your explanation it covers the whole galaxy?
So how can you tell it to work at the spiral and ignore the bar?
My suspicion is this: close to the galactic center, it could be that the density of normal matter is higher than that of dark matter. If that's the case, then the gravitational influence of normal matter would dominate the orbital speeds of stars. In the outer regions of the galaxy, where normal matter is less dense, dark matter would dominate the contribution to the orbital speeds.
that this dark matter is ONLY needed to solve the rotation curve anomaly in the spiral arms.
Are you acknowledging the need for dark matter to explain the rotation curve anomaly now?
Would you kindly explain how that switch really works?
See above.
I hope that we all agree that our scientists don't have a basic clue what is the dark matter
I've already corrected this claim before.
They just hope that this dark matter exists as a sphere around the center of the galaxy at different densities which is based on a very specific formula that they have invented.
You've got it backwards: they infer the density of dark matter from the data, not the other way around.
Please also be aware that the dark matter should move with the MW galaxy while it cross the space at 600 Km/s.
It can't move from the center of the galaxy.
It isn't just in the center of the galaxy.
So, at least so far we fully agree that the dark matter fully obey to the wish of our scientists
What it obeys is the laws of physics, not scientists.
I would use the magic dark matter to do the job.
I can invent the formula for the dark matter that can do whatever I wish it to do.
As it works only at the spiral arm, it won't have any negative impact on the bar.
So please, why our scientists can't use my idea of dark matter that is only focus in the spiral arms in order to solve the rotation curve anomaly in those arms without any negative impact on the bar?
Therefore, are you ready from now on to accept my explanation about the spiral arms while I'm using the dark matter imagination to support my wish?
Or it is forbidden for me to use the dark matter as only our key scientists have the permission to use it whenever is needed and at any formula that they wish and invent as my name is Dave and not Einstein?.
You could do that if you wanted to, but you'd need to show why your version of dark matter is better than what scientists have already come up with.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2022 07:27:58
My suspicion is this: close to the galactic center, it could be that the density of normal matter is higher than that of dark matter. If that's the case, then the gravitational influence of normal matter would dominate the orbital speeds of stars. In the outer regions of the galaxy, where normal matter is less dense, dark matter would dominate the contribution to the orbital speeds.The outwards section of the bar is located at the same radius as the most inwards side of the spiral arms.
Therefore, this answer is clearly incorrect.
Are you acknowledging the need for dark matter to explain the rotation curve anomaly now?There is no need for dark matter.
However, you refuse to understand how the ordinary matter can fully explain the rotation curve anomaly.
What it obeys is the laws of physics, not scientists.The dark matter by itself doesn't obey to any law of physics.
As there is no person that can see without been seen, there is no matter that can set a gravity impact without detecting its existence by any sort of detectors.
However I really wish to thank you for giving me permission to use this dark magic,
You could do that if you wanted to, but you'd need to show why your version of dark matter is better than what scientists have already come up with.Yes, I would show you why my personal imagination about the dark matter works perfectly OK at the spiral galaxy and how this magic answers all the open questions and meet the observation by 100%.
From now on there will be no puzzled scientist.
You would know how everything really works.
However, I would do so upon my return from the Business trip.
Thanks and have a good day
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2022 15:27:46
Yes, I would show you why my personal imagination about the dark matter works perfectly OK at the spiral galaxy and how this magic answers all the open questions and meet the observation by 100%.Don't forget to include the mathematics, or nobody will pay you any attention.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2022 21:34:00
The outwards section of the bar is located at the same radius as the most inwards side of the spiral arms.
Therefore, this answer is clearly incorrect.
That would be the location at which gravitational dominance switches from that of normal matter to that of dark matter. Take a look at figure 22 on this page: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept16/Sofue/Sofue4.html
The mass contribution of the dark halo begins to dominate the other forms of mass between 1 and 10 kiloparsecs. Inside of that, the other, normal parts of the galaxy make up greater mass contributions. At about 100 parsecs, the bulge appears to have over 10 times the mass contribution of the dark halo.
There is no need for dark matter.
To explain the anomalous rotation curve, there is (either that or some form of MOND).
However, you refuse to understand how the ordinary matter can fully explain the rotation curve anomaly.
I'm not refusing to understand it, it's just that it doesn't work. It violates Kepler's third law. There is a limit on how fast the gravity from normal matter can make the stars orbit. That limit is represented by Kepler's third law. By proposing that you can go faster than that, you are violating Kepler's third law. Where do you propose all of that extra kinetic energy is coming from that is needed to make those stars go faster than gravity allows?
If you're proposing that stars closer in are dragging around the stars that are further out with gravity, then that would slow down the stars closer in. What you end up with isn't the outer stars moving just as fast as the inner stars would normally be moving due to Kepler's third law: you end up having those inner stars slow down at the expense of the outer stars speeding up because some of the kinetic energy of those inner stars is being transferred to the outer stars. That wouldn't fit the galactic rotation curve. All of those stars would be moving slower than 220 km/s, not at 220 km/s.
The dark matter by itself doesn't obey to any law of physics.
It would have to.
As there is no person that can see without been seen, there is no matter that can set a gravity impact without detecting its existence by any sort of detectors.
People are made out of normal matter, which interacts with light and therefore can be seen. Dark matter doesn't interact with light. And we can detect dark matter using telescopes (by using them to measure the speed of stars).
However I really wish to thank you for giving me permission to use this dark magic,
I gave you permission to use dark matter, not "magic". If your proposal does not lend itself to the scientific method, then it isn't science.
Yes, I would show you why my personal imagination about the dark matter works perfectly OK at the spiral galaxy and how this magic answers all the open questions and meet the observation by 100%.
From now on there will be no puzzled scientist.
You would know how everything really works.
Color me skeptical.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55
I'm Back
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/07/2022 07:27:58That would be the location at which gravitational dominance switches from that of normal matter to that of dark matter.
The outwards section of the bar is located at the same radius as the most inwards side of the spiral arms.
Therefore, this answer is clearly incorrect.
Take a look at figure 22 on this page: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept16/Sofue/Sofue4.html
The mass contribution of the dark halo begins to dominate the other forms of mass between 1 and 10 kiloparsecs. Inside of that, the other, normal parts of the galaxy make up greater mass contributions. At about 100 parsecs, the bulge appears to have over 10 times the mass contribution of the dark halo.
Please look again at figure22
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept16/Sofue/Figures/figure22.jpg
The dark matter influence is described by the black line that is called - direct mass sphere (and a similar red line that is called - flat disc) and it starts from 10^-3 KPC. (which means 1PC = 3.2 LY)
Therefore, the dark matter has neglected impact till about 3LY.
Up to this 3LY range the gravity impact is mainly due to the Black hole.
Therefore, based on the graph the dark matter has an impact From that 3LY (10^-3 KPC) upwards.
So yes, your following message is correct:
The mass contribution of the dark halo begins to dominate the other forms of mass between 1 and 10 kiloparsecs.However, the bar is located from 1KPC to 3KPC.
Therefore, this graph fully supports my message that the bar is dominated by the mass contribution of the dark halo/matter.
We already know that based on Kepler's third law, in the bar (from 1KPC to 3KPC) there is no need for the dark matter at all.
Hence, the existence of dark matter in the bar violates Kepler's third law!
When we try to focus on the edge of the bar (3KPC), where the ring is located and the spiral arm starts, we don't see any change is the dark matter line.
Sorry, you are.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/07/2022 07:27:58I'm not refusing to understand it, it's just that it doesn't work. It violates Kepler's third law.
However, you refuse to understand how the ordinary matter can fully explain the rotation curve anomaly.
I have just proved that the existence of dark matter in the bar fully violates Kepler's third law.
So, the dark matter imagination clearly can't work!
I hope that you agree that the dark matter can't explain the full structure of the spiral galaxy.
It can't explain why the ring is at 3KPC, why the bar is always inwards to the ring and the spiral arms are always outwards to the ring.
Actually, if you take this graph and run it in the the computer, the chance to get back the structure of the spiral galaxy (Bulge, Bar, ring, spiral arms) is purely ZERO!
You know it and anyone knows it.
There is a limit on how fast the gravity from normal matter can make the stars orbit. That limit is represented by Kepler's third law.Sorry, there is no limit.
You all miss the key functionality of the arms in the galaxy (Bar, ring or spiral). Yes the ring is also an arm!!!
You refuse to understand that once the star is bonded to the arm (in the Bar, Ring, or spiral), it must go wherever the arm goes.
Any attempt to look on individual star that is located in the arm (and is gravity bonded to the arm), and try to calculate its velocity as there is no arm - is a FATAL mistake!!!
Hence, when you base the star orbital velocity on the imagination that the arm has no impact, you made a sever mistake that leads you to wrong conclusions - which is:
It violates Kepler's third law.Sorry, No!
Unfortunately, you refuse to understand that ONLY the arm is responsible for the velocity of the stars that it carry with it.
You keep holding the dark matter imagination which clearly violates Kepler's third law in the bar, just to explain the orbital velocity of stars that are bonded to the arm while it can't explain the full structure of the spiral galaxy.
This is your severe mistake!
Please look at the following image of the Milky way:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-spiral-arms-of-the-Milky-Way-Georgelin-Georgelin-1976-with-the_fig1_23795669
Please, Please try to assume that all the arms are based on stars that are bonded by gravity.
I claim that the mutual gravity force of ordinary matter as stars and gas form the arm structure.
If you don't accept it, then please assume for just one moment that the dark matter is used as an extra bonding element between the stars in the arm (even if if there is no need for that imagination).
In any case, let's agree that we start our explanation about the spiral galaxy while each arm is all about stars that are bonded by gravity (with or without dark matter or dark glue).
Therefore, the ring, Bar and spirals arms are all about stars that are bonded together by their mutual gravity force..
Are you ready to stop the No No NO messages and let me explain how real spiral galaxy works?
Please don't try to show why there is an error in my explanation before you fully understand how the full spiral galaxy structure really works.
I feel as a teacher in a class room where the students don't want to listen and claiming No No no.... on every message that I try to deliver.
Is there any possibility for them to understand my message?
So please. even if you are sure that my explanation is incorrect, would you kindly try to be positive, assume that each arm in the galaxy is all about stars that are bonded together by their mutual gravity force and let me offer full explanation about spiral galaxy based on the steps that I select?
Please...
I wish to start with the ring as this is the most important element in the spiral galaxy!
At the end of my explanation, you are more than welcome to compare this explanation to the dark matter imagination and decide which one is superior and which one really violates Kepler's third law.
Agree?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/07/2022 10:17:53
I have just proved that the existence of dark matter in the bar fully violates Kepler's third law.No.
You proved that you didn't understand it.And we already knew that.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/07/2022 17:40:45
Please don't try to show why there is an error in my explanation before you fully understand how the full spiral galaxy structure really works.
If part of your idea breaks the laws of physics, then the whole idea is going to be wrong too.
This discussion is obviously just going around in circles with nothing being accomplished. I'm done.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/07/2022 04:50:21
This discussion is obviously just going around in circles with nothing being accomplished.This discussion is very important as we have accomplished key understanding - The dark matter is incorrect theory.
We have already proved that there is no need for Dark matter in the Bar.
The orbital velocity of stars in the bar can be fully explained by the shape of the bar.
Therefore, the existence of the dark matter in that bar violates Kepler's third law.
I hope that by now we also fully agree that the dark matter by itself can't explain the full structure of the spiral galaxy.
At the best case it can only offer an answer for the orbital rotation velocity of stars in the spiral arms section, but it doesn't give an explanation why there are spiral arms in the disc, why there is a ring, why the bar is always inwards to the ring while the spirals arms are always outwards and many other key questions about the spiral galaxy shape.
We know that 70% of the 400 Billions galaxies in the visible universe are spirals galaxies. ( = 280 Billions)
Therefore, there must be a mechanism that can force/set those 280 Billions galaxies in that specific spiral shape.
I hope that by now we understand that this Mechanism can't be base on dark matter.
Therefore, as the dark matter can't give an answer for the complex shape of the spiral galaxies, it is clear that this dark matter theory is incorrect.
I'm done.Please don't be upset because of the dark matter.
The science community should be glad to understand that the dark matter is incorrect.
It is much better for the science community to abandon wrong theory and stay without any theory instead of holding an error one in their hand.
If part of your idea breaks the laws of physics, then the whole idea is going to be wrong too.Even if you would find that my explanation about the spiral galaxy is incorrect, the science community must abandon the dark matter imagination.
Somehow, the science community must look for better theory which can explain the existence of those 280 Billions spiral galaxies just in the visible universe.
As the dark matter can't explain the full shape of spiral galaxy (Bulge, Bar, Ring, Disc, Spiral arms... ) - that dark matter imagination should be abandon and the sooner is better.
Therefore, please don't be upset.
It might be small step for us, but it is a big step for the science community.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/07/2022 05:04:09
Please don't be upset because of the dark matter.
I'm not upset. I'm just done trying to do the impossible.
It might be small step for us, but it is a big step for the science community.
Nothing of note has been accomplished in this thread.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/07/2022 06:33:38
Nothing of note has been accomplished in this thread.
Yes it is.
At least, do you agree that the dark matter can't explain the complex structure of spiral galaxy?
Yes or no please?
On the other hand, there is clear OBSERVATION that the Bar arm and the spiral arm are temporarily connected by "their mutual attraction due to gravity" and "move as one".
I have just found an excellent article about the Bar:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
It is stated:
"The bar pulsations result from its regular encounters with the Galactic spiral arms, in what can be described as a “cosmic dance”. As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up. Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is. As the dancers split apart, the bar speeds up while the spiral slows back down."
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
It is also stated: "Once connected, the two structures move as one"
So it is all about gravity that connects the stars in the Bar to those in the spiral arm so they all become one.
Wow!!!
What a great information!!!
I was looking for that information for years.
This is the smoking gun of the spiral galaxy!
Not gravity between dark matter to ordinary matter but gravity between two key elements (Bar and spiral arms) in the spiral galaxy that are all based on ordinary matter as stars.
If our scientists would understand the real meaning of this explanation, they would verify that there is no need for dark matter. The stars (ordinary matter) in each element in the galaxy are good enough to maintain its full structure (Bulge, Bar, Ring, Spiral arms...) without any need for even one particle of dark matter!
Take out one element from that complex and you break down the galaxy.
Nothing would help - not even dark matter.
This isn't imagination.
It proves that the "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the ordinary matter (stars and gas) at the edge of the Bar to the ordinary matter in the base of the spiral arm can bond them together and "move as one".
Therefore, we have a clear observation for the bonding impact of the "mutual attraction due to gravity" between stars and gas in the arms (which is all about - ordinary matter).
There is no need for dark matter to bond the stars and gas in the bar to the stars and gas in the spiral arm.
It is all about "mutual attraction due to gravity" of stras and gas between the arms.
In the same token, why the same "mutual attraction due to gravity" of stras and gas that works so perfectly between the arms can't work also in each arm?
Therefore, this is clear observation that stars and gas in each arm can bond themselves by thier "mutual attraction due to gravity" in order to form the arm shape (Bar arm, ring arm and spiral arm).
Once we accept that simple observation, we can easily solve the enigma of spiral galaxy without any need for dark matter.
Each moon goes wherever its planet goes, as each planet goes wherever its star/Sun goes, as each star in the arm goes wherever its arm goes and as each arm goes wherever the galaxy goes.
280 Billions of spiral galaxy - do not make any mistake as they do not need any dark matter. They all base on "mutual attraction due to gravity".
So simple as it is!
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/07/2022 08:07:56
Any arm in the spiral galaxy (bar arm, ring arm & spiral arm) is based on "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the stars and gas in that arm.
However, the Ring arm is the most important arm in the spiral galaxy.
There are many spiral galaxies without bar arm, but in order to have the bar, they must have the ring (even if it is thin and difficult to be fully observed).
The ring arm is the boundary between the bar arm to the spiral arm.
From outside, it generates the gravity force that holds the base of the spiral arms.
From inside it generates the gravity force that is needed to pull stars from the bulge and form them together in the bar shape by their "mutual attraction due to gravity".
The stars in the Bar arm, would be delivered to the spiral arms and to the ring while the spiral arm would be drifted outwards.
In this way, the structure of the entire spiral arms would be kept even while stars in the spiral arms are drifting outwards.
That drifting outwards movement of the stars in the spiral arms can keep them all in a relatively constant orbital velocity while they increase their radius around the galactic disc. In the same token the spiral arm would keep them all in the galactic disc and they would have to go wherever the spiral arm goes.
As the star gets to the edge of the spiral arm it would be ejected from the arm and from the galactic disc.
Please be aware that there might be a possibility for bridges and gateways between the spiral arms.
A star can hold itself to any arm, bridge or gateway by the "mutual attraction due to gravity"
However, once it moves out of those sections, it would be ejected from the galactic disc.
This is the real simple story about the spiral galaxy.
it is all about "mutual attraction due to gravity" between stars and gas without any need for dark matter.
Now, which theory is more realistic?
Is it the dark matter that can't explain the shape of the spiral galaxy (and many other questions)?
Or
Is it this simple understanding that gives an explanation for each section in the spiral arm and show why 280 Billion galaxies can hold their structure for almost indefinitely?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 12:44:13
The science community should be glad to understand that the dark matter is incorrect.You should be glad to understand why you are incorrect.
But you refuse to.
Since part of your idea is impossible because of the laws of physics, the whole of your idea is impossible because of the laws of physics.
You really should rejoice in knowing that.
But you choose to ignore it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 12:44:53
Now, which theory is more realistic?The one that doesn't violate Kepler's law.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/07/2022 13:59:45
The one that doesn't violate Kepler's law.Dark matter imagination is the only one that violates Kepler's law.
We already know that there is no need for extra gravity at the Bar.
Please see the following confirmation for that from Kryptid:
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:12:19I never said that dark matter was needed for the bar.
Therefore it must be stable structure and there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at the Bar.
So can we agree that the dark matter is not needed for the bar, but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?
Therefore, as there is no need for dark matter in the bar, while based on the data it is fully there in the bar section (between 1KPC to 3KPC), then this dark matter clearly violates Kepler's law.
Please also be aware that this imagination can't give any explanation for the unique shape of spiral galaxy.
Therefore, it is irrelevant
You should be glad to understand why you are incorrect.Sorry, you are the one that refuse to understand that the spiral galaxy doesn't need even one particle of dark matter.
But you refuse to.
Please read the following:
Any arm in the spiral galaxy (bar arm, ring arm & spiral arm) is based on "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the stars and gas in that arm.I also like the following message from Kryptid about the arms:
Metastable is probably the better word.So, the arms in the spiral galaxy is all about "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the stars and gas that are located in Metastable stage.
Once a section from the arm (with its hundreds or thousands stars) is ejected from the spiral arm, it get its stable stage by converting to globular cluster.
Therefore, all the globular clusters that we observe around the Milky Way are just small sections of arms that had been ejected from the spiral arms.
As long as the stars and gas are in the galaxy's arm - they are considered at their Metastable stage and form the arm structure.
Once, they are out of the galaxy's arm - they are considered at their stable stage and form the globular cluster structure
Since part of your idea is impossible because of the laws of physics, the whole of your idea is impossible because of the laws of physics.There is no mistake in my idea as it fully meets all laws of physics especially the gravity law.
While the idea of existing of dark matter that we can't detect by any sort of detector and it still has so severe impact on gravity - this is the real idea that breaks the law of physics.
In any case, my idea gives perfect explanation for the full structure of the spiral galaxy.
It shows why the 280 Billions spiral galaxies in the visible universe can keep their structure for billions and trillions of years.
The dark matter by itself can't give any answer for the complex shape/structure of the spiral galaxy.
At the maximum, it gives an answer for the orbital velocity of stars at the spiral section. That's all.
Therefore, this idea which breaks the law of physics and can't help the spiral galaxy to form its unique shape with all its complex structure is just irrelevant
Spiral Galaxy is more than just orbital velocity.
Real theory must answer all the questions about spiral galaxy stracture (if possible - in one single explanation).
As the explanation about the "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the stars and gas in the galaxy' arm is the only one that offers full explanation for the complete structure of the spiral galaxy without any need for extra imagination - then it proves that it is the only real one!
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 22:40:25
Please see the following confirmation for that from Kryptid:I saw it.
It seems you did too.
You recognised the issue
And then you ignored it.but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?
Yes.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2022 06:26:35
And then you ignored it.but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?Yes.
I didn't ignore it.
Even in the last reply I have stated:
The dark matter by itself can't give any answer for the complex shape/structure of the spiral galaxy.So, let's make it clear.
At the maximum, it gives an answer for the orbital velocity of stars at the spiral section. That's all.
Therefore, this idea which breaks the law of physics and can't help the spiral galaxy to form its unique shape with all its complex structure is just irrelevant
Spiral Galaxy is more than just orbital velocity.
Do you confirm that the Dark matter has invented to "glue" the individual star in a fixed orbital motion (and radius) around the galaxy while its location in the arm was totally ignored?
Hence, the spiral arm was absolutely irrelevant for those scientists that have invented the dark matter imagination
without any second verification about the idea that the all those stars are located in spiral arms (including bridges and gateways between the arms)?
So, each star in the galaxy keeps its orbital radius around the galaxy by his own gravity force to the center of the galaxy.
Therefore, in order to help each star to accomplish his mission to keep its orbital radius while all move in a similar velocity, the dark matter had been invented.
Bravo!!!
Hence, based on this imagination our scientists have understood that stars must get in and out from the spiral arms. (as they have totally ignored the arms)
In order to solve this new problem our scientists have invented new idea that is called "density wave".
https://www.pa.uky.edu/~shlosman/anim/spiral_jam.gif
Based on this new imagination, due to the chance that there might be some traffic jam there is a possibility to get the spiral structure while each star in the galaxy keeps its orbital radius and its orbital velocity.
Second Bravo!!!
However, our scientists don't have any clue why there is a ring in the galaxy.
Why the based on the spiral arm is always connected to that ring from outside?
Why there is a bar?
Why the bar is always in the inwards side of the ring?
And many other questions..
Do you really think that by offering dark matter to all of those 400 Billions of galaxies that are located in the visible universe, somehow 280 Billions would form their complex spiral structure,?
Let's assume that this imagination is correct and try to verify if it can work:
Take a sphere of 15KPC, set a SMBH at the center, set randomly 250 Billions of stars inside of that sphere (each one at different radius and at different orbital plane (as it is a Mega Bulge) and finally add the magic dark matter based on any sort of formula that you wish.
Now try to run it in your computer.
What is the chance to get any sort of disc shape from this random orbital motion of each star in the Mega Bulge (up to15KPC)?
If the dark matter works so well, why the Bulge (up to 1KPC) has a spherical shape instead of disc shape?
How many orbital cycles are needed for the Mega Bulge to be transformed to full spiral galaxy structure with its Bulge, Bar, Ring and spiral arm shape?
is it 50 cycles or 10^100....0 cycles?
Let's focus on the Milky Way:
Based on the current understanding, it takes the Sun 240MY to set one orbital galactic cycle while it keeps its radius of 8KPC.
Therefore, Even if the Sun was there from day one of the galaxy, at the maximum it could set 13By/240M = 54 cycles.
So, what is the chance for the Milky way to get its full spiral galaxy structure in just 54 galactic cycles of the sun?
On the other hand, let's assume that 54 cycles is perfectly OK.
A star that is located at 4KPC in the spiral arm would set one orbital cycle in 120MY
Hence, how long it should take the sun (or any other star) to get out from its spiral arm and how long it should take the spiral galaxy to break its structure?
So, how can you explain that for any three galaxies in the Universe, about two galaxies are spirals (remember the 70%)?
Do you think that all of those 280 Billions spiral galaxies are there just by good chance of traffic jam?
Sorry, the dark matter & the traffic jam can't represent any sort of science.
It is a pure imagination from people that have totally failed to understand how spiral galaxy really works.
Unfortunately you keep on with this approach.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2022 09:55:04
At the maximum, it gives an answer for the orbital velocity of stars at the spiral section. That's all.So, you accept that, without it, Kepler's laws are broken.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2022 09:56:37
Hence, the spiral arm was absolutely irrelevant for those scientists that have invented the dark matter imaginationNo
That's absurd.
The motion of the spiral arm was exactly what the dark matter was hypothesised to explain.
Post by: Origin on 10/07/2022 16:03:35
Therefore, in order to help each star to accomplish his mission to keep its orbital radius while all move in a similar velocity, the dark matter had been invented.Your ignorance of astrophysics, which you demonstrate daily, means that your posts are little more than anti-science ranting.
Bravo!!!
Scientist's 'invented' dark matter to explain:
1. Galactic rotation.
2. The movement of galaxies in galactic clusters.
3. The greater than expected gravitation lensing of galactic clusters.
4. The distribution of the cosmic background microwave radiation.
Post by: paul cotter on 10/07/2022 17:44:08
Post by: Halc on 10/07/2022 17:45:52
So, you accept that, without it, Kepler's laws are broken.FYI, there's a lot of references to Kepler's laws (the third one especially), yet those laws only apply to orbits of insignificant masses about one significant (effectively point) mass. So the laws are not violated either with or without dark matter since the laws are not applicable in the first place.
1) 'Orbits' about the galaxy are not elliptical, or even planar.
2) A line segment joining some star and center of the galaxy does not sweep out equal areas during equal intervals of time, although it's pretty close with any star that has little eccentricity to its path.
3) 'Orbit' periods do not follow the square-cube rule, with or without dark matter.
What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.
Post by: puppypower on 10/07/2022 19:23:56
"Astronomers led by researchers at the University of Arizona spotted the brilliant quasar about 13.03 billion light-years from Earth"
"This quasar, called J0313-1806, can be dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang (the universe at this time was a mere 5% of its current age), making it the most distant and earliest quasar ever found. This quasar also hosts a supermassive black hole that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns. "
One of the conceptual problems that is not addressed is connected to the continued expansion of the universe from the BB. If the signals from that quasar did indeed travel for 13.03 billion years, and the universe was/is still expanding all that time, the original signals should have red shifted out of what we expect from a quasar, after 13 billion years of constant red shift expansion of early energy that cannot regenerate with matter.
The only way you can maintain the original signal of a quasar, is if the universe is not really expanding in terms of space-time. This way only a doppler shift will appear, and then stay constant, forever.
How can light, given off by a quasar, traveling in an expanding universe for 13 billions of years, avoid all the extra 13 billion years of red shift, due to the continuing expanding universe? If space-time is expanding all energy wavelengths stretch out, to lower and lower and lower energy.
What someone should do is use the observed energy signal and back calculate 13 billion years of blue shift; needed to go back into time 13 billion years. This energy calculation would make the starting quasar much hotter and much more massive, like nothing we have anywhere near our galaxy. it may open up new early universe quasar formation scenarios.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2022 19:42:26
The motion of the spiral arm was exactly what the dark matter was hypothesised to explain.Sorry, you have a severe mistake.
The dark matter doesn't care about the spiral arms, Ring and Bar
It is mainly about the galactic rotation of stars.
Please see the following replies:
Scientist's 'invented' dark matter to explain:What about the complex structure of spiral Galaxy?
1. Galactic rotation.
2. The movement of galaxies in galactic clusters.
3. The greater than expected gravitation lensing of galactic clusters.
4. The distribution of the cosmic background microwave radiation.
Why our scientists totally ignore that somehow there are 280 Billions spiral that should be explained (while the dark matter doesn't give any answer for their complex structure)?
What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.Your explanation is valid as long as we ignore the arms.
So, if you look at a single star (as our solar system) and try to accounted the sum of the forces applied on it by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy then you are fully correct -
there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonicHowever, in this case, you totally ignore the great impact of the spiral arm?
Why is it so difficult to understand that any star outside the Bulge doesn't hold itself to the center of the galaxy, but holds itself to the arms (spiral arm, ring arm & bar arm)?
We have full observation that proves it.
How many times do I have to offer you the same article?
I have just found an excellent article about the Bar:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
It is stated:
"The bar pulsations result from its regular encounters with the Galactic spiral arms, in what can be described as a “cosmic dance”. As the bar and spiral arm approach each other, their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up. Once connected, the two structures move as one and the bar appears much longer and slower than it actually is. As the dancers split apart, the bar speeds up while the spiral slows back down."
It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."
It is also stated: "Once connected, the two structures move as one"
So why do you all insist to ignore the key functionality of the spiral?
Don't you understand that it is all about: "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the ordinary matter..
the "mutual attraction due to gravity" between the ordinary matter (stars and gas) at the edge of the Bar to the ordinary matter in the base of the spiral arm can bond them together and "move as one".Why do you refuse to understand that the solar system doesn't need to bond itself by gravity to the center of the galaxy, but bond itself to the spiral arm by its own gravity, while the spiral arm is bounded by its gravity to the ring arm?
Hence there is no need for extra gravity force to bond the solar system to the center of the galaxy.
As long as the solar is bonded to the spiral arm, it would go wherever the spiral arm goes
However, if our Sun, would dare to move away from its spiral arm, then there isn't enough baryonic gravity to hold it in its orbital motion and it would be ejected from the galactic disc as a rocket.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2022 19:54:35
1. Galactic rotation.That includes the rotation of the spiral arms of the galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2022 19:55:16
So why do you all insist to ignore the key functionality of the spiral?Because there is no reason to suppose it has a function.
Post by: Origin on 10/07/2022 20:12:17
If the signals from that quasar did indeed travel for 13.03 billion years, and the universe was/is still expanding all that time, the original signals should have red shifted out of what we expect from a quasarWhat are you talking about? The red shift of quasars are how we know their distance and age.
How can light, given off by a quasar, traveling in an expanding universe for 13 billions of years, avoid all the extra 13 billion years of red shift, due to the continuing expanding universe?What are you talking about?
If space-time is expanding all energy wavelengths stretch out, to lower and lower and lower energy.Which is exactly what we see in a quasar's red shift.
What someone should do is use the observed energy signal and back calculate 13 billion yearsThis sounds like a homework question usually asked in freshman astronomy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/07/2022 05:27:44
No, it isn't1. Galactic rotation.That includes the rotation of the spiral arms of the galaxy.
Did you had the chance to read the following message from Halc:
There is no "arm" in this explanation.QuoteQuote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:55:04FYI, there's a lot of references to Kepler's laws (the third one especially), yet those laws only apply to orbits of insignificant masses about one significant (effectively point) mass. So the laws are not violated either with or without dark matter since the laws are not applicable in the first place.
So, you accept that, without it, Kepler's laws are broken.
1) 'Orbits' about the galaxy are not elliptical, or even planar.
2) A line segment joining some star and center of the galaxy does not sweep out equal areas during equal intervals of time, although it's pretty close with any star that has little eccentricity to its path.
3) 'Orbit' periods do not follow the square-cube rule, with or without dark matter.
In order to get better understanding, please also see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."
"The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated mass associated with the observed luminous material."
Therefore, it is all about star that orbits around "centrally dominated mass" at a "radial distance from that galaxy's center."
There is no arm in this story.
It is all about a star that orbits at a constant radius around the center of the galaxy.
Actually, in this article, they discuss about the arm and they claim:
"When mass profiles of galaxies are calculated from the distribution of stars in spirals and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks, they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and the law of gravity. A solution to this conundrum is to hypothesize the existence of dark matter and to assume its distribution from the galaxy's center out to its halo."
So, they don't claim that stars are bonded to the arm, but try to calculate the effective mass due to the distribution of stars in spirals and find that those stars "do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and the law of gravity"
Therefore, they just ignore the observation that all of those stars are bonded in the spiral arms and totally ignore the real meaning of all observations.
Hence, they clearly see that the arms are full with stars, but from their point of view, each star must bond itself to the center of the galaxy and not to the spiral arm.
Therefore, the spiral arm has no real meaning to our scientists.
Is it?So why do you all insist to ignore the key functionality of the spiral?Because there is no reason to suppose it has a function.
Please look at the following image:
Please look at the following image of the Milky way:Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-spiral-arms-of-the-Milky-Way-Georgelin-Georgelin-1976-with-the_fig1_23795669
What would happen to the spiral structure after just one galactic orbital cycle?
Don't you agree that stars would be moved outside the arms and the spiral shape would be broken?
Actually, there is no need for one full galactic cycle, even after 0.1 of a cycle, stars would already be moved away from the arms (especially at the far end) and the spiral shape would be broken.
The Sun complete one galactic cycle in 240 MY.
So, in just 24MY from now our sun would be out of the Orion spiral arm.
In the same token we can assume that also 24 MY ago it was also outside the spiral arm.
Therefore, we are just lucky that as we open our eyes suddenly the Milky Way got its wonderful spiral structure.
We are also so lucky that every two galaxies out of three in the entire universe are just transformed into spiral galaxies.
Wow how lucky we are that we can observe 280B spiral galaxies at all ages (from only 0.5BY to 13.8BY).
Sorry, those 280 Billion galaxies do no lie to us. There is no luck in those spiral galaxies.
They all work on the same basic law of newton gravity force that bond a star to the spiral arm and is called metastable stage.
Hence, As long as our scientists would refuse to understand the real meaning of spiral arms, they won't understand how spiral galaxy really works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2022 08:28:07
No, it isn'tYes it is.
Did you had the chance to read the following message from Halc:Yes.
There is no "arm" in this explanation.There are also no mentions of penguins eating fish.
But that does not mean that penguins do not eat fish, does it?
You problem isn't just a lack of understanding of science, it's a failure to understand basic logic.
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."And the stars in the arms are rotating about the centre of the galaxy.
So, as I said
1. Galactic rotation.That includes the rotation of the spiral arms of the galaxy.
Is it?Is what?
Anyway, you already lost this argument earlier in the thread.
Why are you trying, once again, to pretend that someone assigned a purpose to the spiral?
If you prefer to call this activity as effect instead of function - then this is perfectly OK.It is perfectly OK for me to use the right word.
It is not OK for you to use the wrong one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/07/2022 05:33:21
As you claim that the stars in the arms are rotating about the centre of the galaxy, then do you agree that each star keeps its galactic orbital radius and orbital velocity?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:27:44And the stars in the arms are rotating about the centre of the galaxy.
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."
If so and as your logic is superior;
You problem isn't just a lack of understanding of science, it's a failure to understand basic logic.Would you kindly explain how all those billions of stars that are orbiting at the same velocity (about 220Km/s) but at different galactic radius (from 3KPC to 15KPC) could be kept at the same spiral arm for even one orbital galactic cycle without breaking the spiral shape?
In order to help you please look again at the following image of the Milky way:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
Please look at the following image of the Milky Way:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-spiral-arms-of-the-Milky-Way-Georgelin-Georgelin-1976-with-the_fig1_23795669
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/07/2022 05:01:45
There are also no mentions of penguins eating fish.Dear BC
But that does not mean that penguins do not eat fish, does it?
I hope that you do understand that spiral arms are quite more complicate than penguins eating fish.
The Milky way is waiting for your superior Logic.
All the other 280 Billions of spiral galaxies are also waiting.
So, please harry up.
They all might lose their spiral arms as the dark matter by itself can't help.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2022 08:48:51
I hope that you do understand that spiral arms are quite more complicate than penguins eating fish.Yes. That's why I chose a simple example- in the hope that you would understand.
But it seems I overestimated your intelligence.
As far as I can tell, you just are not bright enough to realise why you are wrong.
I feel like might as well try to explain astronomy to a dog.
It won't matter how hard I try to teach, not how carefully the dog listens.
He never will understand.
And it seems to be the same with you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2022 12:08:24
As far as I can tell, you just are not bright enough to realise why you are wrong.Let's make it clear.
I feel like might as well try to explain astronomy to a dog.
In order to avoid the message about your inability to explain how spiral galaxy really works, you attack the messenger.
This is your expected approach which you constantly use any time that you have no clue what should be the real answer.
You are using the Dog, penguins and fish just to show that you don't have a basic clue about my following question:
Would you kindly explain how all those billions of stars that are orbiting at the same velocity (about 220Km/s) but at different galactic radius (from 3KPC to 15KPC) could be kept at the same spiral arm for even one orbital galactic cycle without breaking the spiral shape?
In order to help you please look again at the following image of the Milky way:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/07/2022 05:27:44
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55
Please look at the following image of the Milky Way:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-spiral-arms-of-the-Milky-Way-Georgelin-Georgelin-1976-with-the_fig1_23795669
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
Therefore, please don't take it personally as all the Astronomers together in the entire universe don't have a basic clue how the dark matter can form the unique shape of spiral galaxy.
So, you can go on with your Zoo land as you wish. Unfortunately, it won't help even for one spiral galaxy to keep its spiral structure for just one galactic cycle.
The dark matter by itself can't explain the Bar, Ring and spiral structure.
However, our Astronomers don't really care about it.
They just offer an imagination that is called dark matter to solve the orbital velocity while they totally ignore the full structure of the galaxy.
Hence, they clearly ignore any observation that could contradict their theory.
They don't care that any second galaxy in the Universe is spiral.
They don't care that there are 280 Billions of spiral galaxies just in the visible Universe.
They only care that the current mainstream would be kept on forever.
We OBSERVE that the bar transfer stars to the spiral arms and ring.
It is stated clearly:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"
So it is stated clearly:
" If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left)."
Hence:
Once the Bar is disconnected from the spiral arm, it becomes SMALLER.
Therefore, stars are transferred from the bar directly into the spiral arms & Ring.
That observation proves that the Bar is used to funnel stars from the Bulge into the spiral arm/Bar and not vice versa.
However, this observation kills the current mainstream:
Our scientists wish to believe that the SMBH eats stars from the Bulge while new stars are delivered/funneled from the bar to the Bulge.
However, how could it be that the Bulge can supply stars outside to the Bar and at the same time supply stars to the SMBH to be eaten while it is still full with so many stars?
So, from where all the matter for those stars in the Bulge are coming from? If it is not from outside (bar) and it is not from inside (SMBH) then from where the matter is coming?
I hope that by now we all fully accept the observation that the Bar funnels stars from the Bulge to the spiral arms and ring.
Hence, could it be that the second imagination of our scientists that the SMBH is eating stars from inside the Bulge is just incorrect?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2022 14:04:18
I chose a simple example- in the hope that you would understand.
But it seems I overestimated your intelligence.
As far as I can tell, you just are not bright enough to realise why you are wrong.
I feel like might as well try to explain astronomy to a dog.
It won't matter how hard I try to teach, not how carefully the dog listens.
He never will understand.
And it seems to be the same with you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2022 15:11:50
He never will understand.
As you think that you do understand, then please advice what is the meaning of the following message:
" If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left)."
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"
Actually, you don't need to know science. Basic logic is good enough.
So, please based on your superior logic, what do you understand from the observation that the bar is shorter/smaller at the moment of disconnection from the spiral arm?
What is the real flow of stars?
Is it from the Bar to the spiral arm, or from the spiral arm to the bar.
Post by: Halc on 15/07/2022 17:35:18
You display negligible reading comprehension skills, and mathematics and logic skills are also lacking.
This topic seems to be devolving into assertions of slander against these 'astonomers' that have so little clue, so I am once again threatening to close the topic that has long since passed any hope of making progress.
But let me put a little reading comprehension test, based on some past responses. Apologies for treating you like an 8 year old in a quiz here, but you're determined to act like one.
What exactly do you think I was saying in that quote?What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.Your explanation is valid as long as we ignore the arms.
Please don't just copy my words. Tell me in your own words what the post was about.
You don't have to agree with the words, just give an indication the comprehension isn't totally absent.
Why do you think mention of arms was necessary?
Who was the comment addressed to?
What was the purpose of my posting that when I've been mostly keeping out of this?
Was the purpose served?
You go on to reference the same comment again, like it somehow backs some assertion of yours.
There is no "arm" in [Halc's same] explanation.The rotation curve comment you quote also does not mention 'arms'. What do you think the wiki comment says? Why was a reference to my comment (especially my lack of mention of 'arms') relevant to this comment?
In order to get better understanding, please also see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out. The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that. You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
As for superior logic, you commit a straw man fallacy here, asserting facts that are not held by these 'clueless' astronomers, only by you. So that's the demonstration of 'superior logic' you've been requesting.
As you think that you do understand, then please advice what is the meaning of the following message:OK, since you quoted that, what do you think it says? This is a reading comprehension test remember.
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"
Why do you think this comment is relevant here?
The comment is a caption, and is obviously commenting on the images above it. What is it saying that you think is worthy of being introduced in this topic?
If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/07/2022 05:09:54
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
Thanks
The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that.
The distance that a star should cover in one orbital cycle is:
S=2πR
Hence,
S3 (for the one at 3KPC) = 2π3KPC
S15 (for the one at 15KPC) = 2π15KPC
Hence
S15 / S3 = 5.
As both stars orbit at the same velocity, then by the time that S15 sets only one orbital cycle, S3 would have to set exactly 5 orbital cycles.
So why do you claim that "The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics"?
Can you please offer better mathematics?
Our Sun is located at about 7.5KPC from the center of the galaxy.
Therefore we can claim that
S7.5 / S3 = 2.5
You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.Sorry, why do you claim that my assertions are wrong.
What is wrong?
Please look again on the following image of the milky way:
Please look at the following image of the Milky Way:What is wrong with my logic?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-spiral-arms-of-the-Milky-Way-Georgelin-Georgelin-1976-with-the_fig1_23795669
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
Don't you agree by now that by the time that S15 would set only one orbital cycle, S7.5 would have to set 2.5 cycles and S3 would have would set 5 cycles?
If you agree with that, then why don't you agree that after one orbital cycle of S15, that spiral arm shape must be broken.
So how can we explain that 280B galaxies at the entire visible universe at different ages keep their spiral shape for very long time?
If you still think that dark matter by itself can keep the spiral shape after one orbital cycle of S15, then please explain how it works.
Post by: The Spoon on 16/07/2022 10:55:57
If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.See Halc post above
If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.
See Halc post above. Anser his points instead of posting anti-science nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
ThanksThe ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that.
The distance that a star should cover in one orbital cycle is:
S=2πR
Hence,
S3 (for the one at 3KPC) = 2π3KPC
S15 (for the one at 15KPC) = 2π15KPC
Hence
S15 / S3 = 5.
As both stars orbit at the same velocity, then by the time that S15 sets only one orbital cycle, S3 would have to set exactly 5 orbital cycles.
So why do you claim that "The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics"?
Can you please offer better mathematics?
Our Sun is located at about 7.5KPC from the center of the galaxy.
Therefore we can claim that
S7.5 / S3 = 2.5You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.Sorry, why do you claim that my assertions are wrong.
What is wrong?
Please look again on the following image of the milky way:Please look at the following image of the Milky Way:What is wrong with my logic?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-spiral-arms-of-the-Milky-Way-Georgelin-Georgelin-1976-with-the_fig1_23795669
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
Don't you agree by now that by the time that S15 would set only one orbital cycle, S7.5 would have to set 2.5 cycles and S3 would have would set 5 cycles?
If you agree with that, then why don't you agree that after one orbital cycle of S15, that spiral arm shape must be broken.
So how can we explain that 280B galaxies at the entire visible universe at different ages keep their spiral shape for very long time?
If you still think that dark matter by itself can keep the spiral shape after one orbital cycle of S15, then please explain how it works.
Post by: Origin on 16/07/2022 15:21:47
The distance that a star should cover in one orbital cycle is:Your attempts at math to support your position are even worse than your arm waving gibberish.
S=2πR
Hence,
S3 (for the one at 3KPC) = 2π3KPC
S15 (for the one at 15KPC) = 2π15KPC
Hence
S15 / S3 = 5.
As both stars orbit at the same velocity, then by the time that S15 sets only one orbital cycle, S3 would have to set exactly 5 orbital cycles.
So why do you claim that "The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics"?
Can you please offer better mathematics?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2022 05:32:04
Why "Oops"?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:09:54Oops
As both stars orbit at the same velocity
Please look at the following rotation velocity of stars:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/thompson.1847/1101/RotCurve2.gif
Don't you agree that stars at the spiral disc orbit at almost the same velocity?
As the velocity of stars in the spiral disc is almost the same, don't you agree that those stars at any radius sould cover almost the same distance at any given fixed time fram?
Therefore, while a star at 15 KPC sets only one galactic orbital cycle, how many cycles stars at 7.5KPC and 3KPC would have to do - based on your math?
Wow!!!QuoteQuoteBecause they predict the rapid breakup of arms
Sorry, why do you claim that my assertions are wrong.
You fully that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arms"
That exactly meet my assertion that based on the dark matter imagination, spiral arms should be broken very quickly..
You call it: "the rapid breakup of arms".
What is the meaning of "rapid"
Do you agree that the arms are broken very quickly?
If so, how quickly?
Is it after one galactic orbital cycle of our sun (S7.5 - in 240MY) or 0.1 cycle (in 24MY)?
Can we agree on 100MY?
However, how the spiral arm could be recovered?
Can you please explain the process how the dark matter by itself can help the spiral arms to be recovered to their nice symmetrical spiral shape after they have been broken?
Is it just an issue of a good luck like a lottery?
So, what is the chance for the galaxy to win the lottery and gain back its spiral arms
How long time is needed? Is it also about 100MY or 10^10..00 Billion years?
yet most galaxies have armsThat is fully correct. Every two galaxies out of three are spiral.
Therefore, your imagination about "the rapid breakup of arms" is just incorrect.
How can you claim that based on your wrong theory it is predicted that the arms would be broken quickly, while the observation proves that the spiral arms are fully stable in all those 280 Billions galaxies?
Your claims contradict evidence, but that's nothing new.I claim that the arms are stable (or actually "metastable").
The imagination of "therapid breakup of arms" is just incorrect.
The 280 Billion spiral galaxies PROVE it!
Sorry, as you fully understand that based on the dark matter the arms should be broken quickly, while "most galaxies have arms" then you have to know that your theory about the dark matter imagination is just incorrect!!!!
Therefore, my claim meets the evidence/observation by 100%.
Answer the reading comprehension questions Dave,I will. Promise.
Please, let me answer your questions one by one.
Let's focus now on your sever mistake about "the rapid breakup of arms".
Your attempts at math to support your position are even worse than your arm waving gibberish.So please show your math that is based on real data/observation (as I did) and not just "arm waving".
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2022 09:33:50
Wow!!!Did you mean "You fully refute..." or "You fully agree..."
You fully that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arms"
You certainly failed writing.
I think you also failed the comprehension.
You need to get to grips with understanding what people write.
Let's focus now on your sever mistake about "the rapid breakup of arms".No.
We need you to focus on actually understanding what we say.
Otherwise we are back in this territory.
I feel like might as well try to explain astronomy to a dog.
It won't matter how hard I try to teach, not how carefully the dog listens.
He never will understand.
And it seems to be the same with you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2022 12:41:50
Halc (& Kryptid) are the only persons in this site that are brave enough to offer real technical data even if it proves my understandingQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:32:04No.
Let's focus now on your sever mistake about "the rapid breakup of arms".
We need you to focus on actually understanding what we say.
While you just say No , No No, without offering any real data or mathematics.
Therefore I really admire Halc for his honesty in this reply.
Halc clearly had stated that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arm":
predict the rapid breakup of armsThat prediction is a direct outcome from the Dark matter.
Halc actually confirmed that the arms are broken quickly.
I don't need more than that.
Now, as you claim that I don't know, then would you kindly answer the following questions?
1. Broken arms in spiral galaxy
How quickly the the arms are broken?
Is it after one galactic orbital cycle of our sun (S7.5 - in 240MY) or 0.1 cycle (in 24MY)?
Can we agree on 100MY?
2. Recovery from broken arms
A. Can you please explain the process how the dark matter by itself can help the spiral arms to be recovered to their nice symmetrical spiral shape after they have been broken?
B. Is it just an issue of a good luck like a lottery? What is the chance for the galaxy to win the lottery and gain back its spiral arms
C. How long time is needed? Is it also about 100MY or 10^10..00 Billion years?
Please, this time real technical data and not just arm waving!
Post by: Halc on 17/07/2022 12:48:30
Wow!!!QuoteQuoteBecause they predict the rapid breakup of arms
Sorry, why do you claim that my assertions are wrong.
You fully that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arms"
Quote
Halc clearly had stated that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arm":You did not answer the questions I required. You thus fail the test of being someone who displays any reading comprehension skills. For instance, this little quote above suddenly suggests that I said that scientists predict the rapid breakup of arms, when I of course made no mention of scientists (or dark matter) in what you quoted. It was your assertions that do, and thus your assertions that contradict the evidence.predict the rapid breakup of armsThat prediction is a direct outcome from the Dark matter.
Quote
Can you please explain the process how the dark matter by itself can help the spiral arms to be recovered to their nice symmetrical spiral shape after they have been broken?Another example. Nobody every suggested this. You cannot read.
Based on the replies here, and since you would not answer the questions testing if it is worth leaving the topic open, it is (and has been for some time) very apparent that communication with you is not possible. This is a waste of everybody's time. Topic closed.