0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Halc on 22/12/2018 14:27:52So is there a model supplied by such open-minded thinking? Trust me, such a thing would be warmly greeted if it worked.Trust me.There is a model that works by 100%.However, I need your cooperation and good willing.
So is there a model supplied by such open-minded thinking? Trust me, such a thing would be warmly greeted if it worked.
For just one moment try to forget all the wrong understanding/hypothetical ideas that we have about the galaxy (Including: Age of the Star/galaxy/Universe, dark matter/dark energy and so on).
In the same token:Every star in the galaxy must orbit around some host Point. It might be something that we see or something that we can't see. However, any star (at any size) must set a clean orbital cycle (in ellipse shape or a perfect cycle). If we can't see that host point, let's call it virtual host point.
Summery -The orbital cycle around a virtual host point is a key element in my explanation.Please try to accept this idea as is.
If you totally can't agree with that, you are more than welcome to prove it by mathematics.
However, please don't tell a story why this idea isn't logical based on your our current understanding about the GalaxyAgree?
If you have no objection - we will set the next element.
This for instance violates Newton's laws, since F=GMm/rē doesn't work anymore. Force actually goes down as distance from that host point decreases. Sometimes it goes up. Depends where you are. That's what Newton's laws say anyway, but you seem to assert that these virtual host points have force of their own, not the objects themselves.
What makes some objects contribute to the force of a host point and other not?
The whole idea is based on Newton law!!!
I can easily prove it.However, in order to prove it we must understand the following:With regards to our SunPlease look at the following motion of the solar system in the galaxy:http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
The broken gray line shows exactly the virtual host point of the Sun while it orbits around the galaxy.
So, the Sun sets a clean orbital cycle around its virtual host point. This host point is a direct outcome of the local mass gravity (Due to the nearby mass in the Orion spiral arm).
We might think that they move randomly relative to each other, but in reality, each one orbits around its virtual host point, while all their host points stay together in the arm and set a nice orbital motion of about 217 Km/sec around the galaxy
They actually hold each other while they set a very high orbital motion. Therefore, a spiral arm is THE key request for their orbital velocity.
If they all moved around the line (not a point) this way, the motion would be less random than depicted, just like the planet motions are hardly random within our solar system.
An arm isn't a host point, nor does it act like one. But yes, the dynamics seem to work like that, yes.
The spiral arm goes around a 217 km/s at this radius, which is in conflict with Newton's prediction for a galaxy with our apparent visible mass.
How does a nearby star's host point differ from its own position? Each has a different host point? Of what would that be the center of mass?
We need to understand one key issue: Gravity works locally!!!Please remember that the moon orbits around the earth, while the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is stronger more than double than the Earth/Moon gravity force. This by itself is enigma.
So, the SMBH has no real impact on the Sun orbital velocity.
This velocity is a direct outcome of local gravity. Hence, each section of the galaxy is affected by the local mass/gravity force.
QuoteWe need to understand one key issue: Gravity works locally!!!Please remember that the moon orbits around the earth, while the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is stronger more than double than the Earth/Moon gravity force. This by itself is enigma.Is it? The moon accelerates more due to the sun than it does due to Earth. At no time does it accelerate away from the sun, even when between the two. When it is there, the moon accelerates away from Earth, just like Newton says it should.
The sun 'orbits' the galaxy, not the SMBH. The latter does have an impact, but nowhere near enough to give the solar system its speed. Apparently not even the galaxy has enough.Speed is approximated by GM/r where M is mass of the spherical thing orbited. Plug in the mass of the SMBH into that, and you get a figure far lower. But the galaxy is not a spherical mass, so orbital speed actually increases with radius at some ranges.
Do you agree that the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is much stronger than Earth/Moon?If so, How can we explain the idea that the moon had selected to orbit around the earth instead around the Sun while the Sun/Moon gravity is much stronger?
Quote from: Halc[Orbital] speed is approximated by GM/r where M is mass of the spherical thing orbited. Plug in the mass of the SMBH into that, and you get a figure far lower. But the galaxy is not a spherical mass, so orbital speed actually increases with radius at some ranges.Yes, sure.If we ignore how spiral galaxy really work, than yes, you are fully correct.
[Orbital] speed is approximated by GM/r where M is mass of the spherical thing orbited. Plug in the mass of the SMBH into that, and you get a figure far lower. But the galaxy is not a spherical mass, so orbital speed actually increases with radius at some ranges.
Hence, as our scientists ignore completely the real impact of spiral arms, and as they also ignore the great impact of local mass gravity, they have found that even the galaxy can't support the orbital velocity of the Sun. But this is a severe mistake.How can we ignore the spiral shape of our galaxy?How can we assume that stars are getting in and out and cross the spiral arms while they orbit around the center of the galaxy?We are missing the whole idea of spiral shape and local mass gravity.Our Sun is not there by itself. It is a severe mistake to verify the orbital velocity of the Sun based only of its mass.Where is the impact of the local mass? Where is the impact of all the nearby stars???
Our sun orbits around a virtual host center. This virtual host center is there due to all the nearby masses. So it is some sort of long chain of gravity forces which holds each other while they all orbit around the galaxy.
We can see it quite clearly in the following diagram of the milky way:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
QuoteOur sun orbits around a virtual host center. This virtual host center is there due to all the nearby masses. So it is some sort of long chain of gravity forces which holds each other while they all orbit around the galaxy.... at an unexplained speed still. Your hypothesis made no attempt to explain that.
Could it be that over time there is a change in the gravity force?
The explanation is quite simple and based on a normal "drifting outwards" activity in gravity.
Please look again at the following diagram:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svgPlease try to focus at the Green spiral arm.If we look directly from the Sun to the SMBH, we can see that it cross Green arm at 6KPC (let's call it star B) while if we look at the other side we can see that the green Arm starts from the edge of the Bar (let's assume that the distance from the center is 3KPC and call it star A)So, we have two points (or stars) on the same diameter line and on the same arm.One point is at a distance of 3KPC and the other is at 6KPC.
We know that all the stars have almost the same velocity - V.
Hence, after time T, both will cross the same distance.
Both of them are drifting outwards while they orbit around the galaxy.
So, let's assume that S1 Represents the distance in the green spiral arm from Star A to Star B
Therefore, both of them will have to cross the same distance = S1.
However, while Star A set 180 degree from the Bottom point (R=3KPC) to the Top (R=6KPC) , Star B will set only about 90 degree from Top point (R=6KPC) to the left point (R=9KPC).
That is a very simple explanation why all stars in the disc orbit at the same velocity while each one stay on the same arm and why we get the unique spiral shape of the arm.Is it clear?
I am unaware of any such normal outward drift. I was hoping you would describe where the energy would come from to do that.
QuoteBoth of them are drifting outwards while they orbit around the galaxy.So you assert, but nothing you've said supports that. It would require energy, and you need to explain the source of that energy.
I think you have A and B moving outward, but no force has been identified that would justify that assertion. 'A' ends up at top at 3KPC and in the same time, B ends up on the right point at 6KPC, assuming they move at the same speed. That would have the effect of stretching the green line. Things move clockwise in that picture remember. You seem to be under the impression that things go the other way.
Sort of.... We're pretty slow actually (~217). Things further out have been measured at 260.
There is no need for extra energy in order to set the drifting outwards activity.
This is a normal outcome of "Gravity Friction".We know that there is a friction at almost any activity.
Somehow, we assume that there is no friction in gravity.
We had long discussion about this issue.You call it "Tidal friction" and I call it "Gravity friction".
You think that there are moons that drifts inwards and I claim that all the moons drifts outwards due to Gravity friction.
As I have stated, all the stars drifts outwards due to gravity friction. So, they actually losing energy instead of gaining energy.Let's set a simple calculation:F = G M m / r^2It is clear that as we increase the radius we decrease the gravity force and vice versa.
I can promise you that all the moons which you think that are drifting inwards - all of them are drifting outwards!!!In any case, as we can't prove this issue, there is no need to argue about it.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.I have tried to explain the basic idea of velocity adjustment while we freeze the spiral stracture.In reality it is much more complex.There are several elements to consider.1. The location of the star. Is it in the Arm, in the ring, in the bulge, in the bar or outside the disc.Currently, we only focus on the spiral arm. Starting from the ring to the last edge of the arm (in the galactic disc). Therefore S2 isn't relevant to our current discussion. I will discuss about it later on.2. The orbital velocity of the virtual host point of the star (at the arm) - V1So, yes, all the stars orbit in clockwise direction (in the diagram). However, in order to keep a similar velocity at any distance (we will discuss later on about the differences in the velocities), they actually move outwards and backwards in the spiral arm. This is very critical point and I'm not sure that my explanation is fully clear.
So, the whole idea is that as a star is located outwards from the ring, we would expect it to have a faster orbital velocity (if it was a rigid disc), However, as a star drifts outwards it also set a backwards movement. This movement keeps the star in the arm while it orbits at a similar velocity as a star that is located closer to the center.Please think about it and let me know if the point is clear to you.
3. The velocity of the star around its host point - V2A star which is located close to the center has a shorter radius to its virtual host point. This radius increases over time due to gravity friction. Therefore, the orbital velocity of star around its virtual host point is faster when a star is located (in the arm) inwards to the galactic center and of course it is slower when a star is located further away from the center.
4. Measured orbital velocity.The Orbital velocity of the virtual host point (V1)+ its orbital velocity around its host point (V2) sets the total orbital velocity of a star.
so, if V1 and V2 are in the same direction, the total orbital speed that we might see is V1 + v2. However, When they move in the opposite directions we see V1 - V2.
Therefore, when we measure the orbital velocity of stars we might find some variations in the orbital velocities even at the same radius although their real Virtual host point velocity is identical.
Quote from: HalcSort of.... We're pretty slow actually (~217). Things further out have been measured at 260. Yes, that is very normal.At the edge of the arm (remember the last green point of mass at the green arm), the orbital velocity gets to its maximal pick.
The Gravity force can't hold it for long time. Therefore, after some time this point of mass has to be disconnected from the arm and drifts outwards from the galactic disc. (I will discuss about that activity later on)
All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.
Quote from: HalcAll objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.If that is the case, than how could it be that we get the spiral shape from that random orbital activity?How many spiral shape you can get due to this random orbital activity?
So, do you really believe that if "All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them", they can set a spiral shape in 72 percent of the galaxies that scientists have observed???
If we see that 72% of the galaxies are spiral, don't you think that it couldn't be due to random phenomenon?
Mass attracts other mass, so spinning material apparently tends to gather into arm.
Perhaps our solar system formed arms before each arm stabilized into rings and then planets. I don't know. I'm not an expert. The spiral arms seem to be a fairly stable structure since many (but not all) semi-large galaxies of similar age seem to have them.
Mass attracts other mass.So, mass gravity works locally. Therefore, the mass in the Spiral arms attracts all the stars in the Arm. Therefore, do you agree that all the stars in the Arm are directly affected by the gravity force of the Arm?
But you have stated:Quote from: Halc on 26/12/2018 23:08:05All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.How could it be that in one hand you claim that - Mass attracts other mass in spiral arms, while on the other hand you claim - All objects are disconnected?
Can you please explain how the following Milky way spiral galaxy had been formed?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
Please explain the following:1. Bulge:Why it has a ball shape? Why there is no disc shape in the Bulge
2. Bar:What is the source for that bar shape?
3. RingWhat is the resone for the Ring shape? Why it has a disc Shape instead of ball shape as we see in the Bulge?
What is the gravity impact of the Ring? Why the ring is so narrow? Why the ring doesn't continue all the way to the far end of the galaxy?
4. Spiral armHow could it be that after the ring we see spiral arm?
Please explain why the spiral arms had been set in a flat disc and why it has this unique shape?
5. End of the Disc shape.Why at some point, the spiral arm shape is ended? Why it doesn't last longer?
How could it be that at some point the Dark matter can't hold the stars in the disc?
Why after the far end edge of the spiral arms we see stars far above and below the galactic disc?
Please look at the following orbital velocity:http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/courbe_rot_voie-lactee.jpghttp://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/matiere_noire_pas_si_noire_uk.htmHow could it be that our scientists don't try to match between the spiral structure to the measured velocity???
Can you please explain why we see that measured velocity at each segment of the galaxy?
If our scientists don't know the answers for some questions, why do you take it for granted that no one can find the real answer for Spiral galaxy enigma?Instead of focusing on the negative aspects, why don't you help me to develop the positive ideas about the galaxy?
Please look at the following orbital velocity:http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/matiere_noire_pas_si_noire_uk.htm
Quote from: DavidMass attracts other mass.So, mass gravity works locally. Therefore, the mass in the Spiral arms attracts all the stars in the Arm. Therefore, do you agree that all the stars in the Arm are directly affected by the gravity force of the Arm?Sure, but not just the mass of the arm. All stars are directly affected by all mass. The nearby portions of our own arm certainly have more effect than the distant parts, and the nearby parts of other arms have more effect than distant parts of our own arm. Acceleration of the sun or a soap bubble in space can be given by a = ∑GM/rē for every object everywhere, which means the sum of acceleration due to each and every object everywhere, not just the objects in our own galactic arm, which is a pretty pathetic arm actually, not one of the main ones.I agree to most of what you say, but gravity does not work locally. I cannot think of any object however non-local that has mass but does not exert any gravitational influence on me.
Please look at the following article:https://www.space.com/19915-milky-way-galaxy.html"Spiral arms are like traffic jams in that the gas and stars crowd together and move more slowly in the arms. As material passes through the dense spiral arms, it is compressed and this triggers more star formation," said Camargo.So, our scientists belive that stars don't stay at spiral Arms but they just move slower at the arms.Therefore, all the stars actually cross the arms while they orbit around the galaxy.
Based on this idea, the Sun has to cross all the arms several times - as the orbital velocity of the Sun is faster than the orbital velocity of the Arm.
However, in the arm, the orbital velocity is lower than outside the arm.So, based on this unrealistic idea, once we are outside the arm, we should speed up.
It is stated:"The solar system travels at an average speed of 515,000 mph (828,000 km/h). Even at this rapid speed, the solar system would take about 230 million years to travel all the way around the Milky Way."So, what is the expected velocity outside the arm?
Do you think that Newton would accept the idea of several orbital velocities changing per one cycle?
How can we agree with this totally unrealistic idea about spiral arms and changing orbital velocities?