0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I assume that even the scientist that wrote the article has no clue how the density wave creates the Bar.
I wonder how can we get any valid information from this illustration.There is no ring and no bar in the illustration.
We only see stars that are moving in and out in order to set the spiral arms.If that was correct, than by definition the 400 Billion stars that move in and out should collide with each other..
Let's look at your example about the duck wake:We see the wake - But it has a specific shape.For example - There is no way to get a wake in a ring shape, zig zag, or that moves in front of the duck.
So, if there is a density wave - it can't technically set all the variety shapes that we need (Bar, Ring, spiral arms, Bulge) and keep each shape at a specific radius and aria while the bar ends exactly at the starting point of the main spiral arms and this point cross the ring.This is too challenging request from a simple idea of - "Density wave"
QuoteSo, if there is a density wave - it can't technically set all the variety shapes that we need (Bar, Ring, spiral arms, Bulge) and keep each shape at a specific radius and aria while the bar ends exactly at the starting point of the main spiral arms and this point cross the ring.This is too challenging request from a simple idea of - "Density wave"Not knowing how it works, I am in no position to declare that it cannot work. They have simulations that reproduce it, and these simulations use only gravity acting on each thing, not physical connections. That means it is not too challenging of a request.
They needed to posit dark matter to get it to work, but no new laws like a 5th force or something.
I think a model of a solid spinning ring and bar with solid arms attached to it would result in an asterisk-shaped galaxy with the arms sticking straight out like they would if you spun out in space a ring with attached flexible arms like that . That is the best description I've seen so far of your model.
There would need to be a rope or some physical structure holding our sun to the arm so it isn't flung away with the spinning, but we see no structure attaching our sun to the arm.
You've suggested no model so far, posting only observations and little actual explanation for any of them.
Quote from: HalcThey needed to posit dark matter to get it to work, but no new laws like a 5th force or something.I have no idea what is the meaning of the 5th force, but there is no need for it. There is also no need for dark matter.Gravity force - That's all we need to set our galaxy.
It's time for me to present my model.However, the two basic elements are:1. There is a friction also in gravity force. This friction reduces the gravity force over time. The only way to reduce the gravity force of an object is by increasing its radius.
2. All the stars in the galaxy must orbit around some virtual host (I will explain it later on).
Once we know those two key elements – We have actually solved the Spiral galaxy enigma.
QuoteIt's time for me to present my model.However, the two basic elements are:1. There is a friction also in gravity force. This friction reduces the gravity force over time. The only way to reduce the gravity force of an object is by increasing its radius.Friction requires physical contact and has an effect on momentum, and has nothing to do with gravitational force. So you need to explain what you mean by that.
Gravitational force is described by GMm/r², and that has no term for friction or for time.
Quote2. All the stars in the galaxy must orbit around some virtual host (I will explain it later on). You've attempted explanation of this at length. Watch out for Newton's third law, because this particular notion seems to violate it heavily.
Quote from: Halc on 15/01/2019 19:40:30QuoteIt's time for me to present my model.However, the two basic elements are:1. There is a friction also in gravity force. This friction reduces the gravity force over time. The only way to reduce the gravity force of an object is by increasing its radius.Friction requires physical contact and has an effect on momentum, and has nothing to do with gravitational force. So you need to explain what you mean by that.That is incorrect.Based on the current idea of our scientists, there is tidal friction....It shows that even our scientists believe that without direct contact there is a friction.
In Tidal friction there is no direct contact or friction between the Earth and the moon, however, somehow it cause the Moon to increase its orbital radius....Therefore in orbital system there is a friction even without a direct contact.
At any given moment the formula for gravity force is as follow:F=GMm/r²However, Newton didn't take in his account the impact of time frame.Somehow, our scientists believe that this force can last forever. This is incorrect.
I do believe that even gravity force must be reduced over time (While there is no change in the mass).
You can call it "Tidal friction", "Gravity friction" or "Gravity force reduced over time". The name of that phenomenon is not relevant.
The key idea is that ALL the planets and ALL the moons in the solar system are drifting outwards over time.
You would never ever find even one planet or one moon in the solar system that drifts inwards.
This is something that our scientists had missed.
If you can't prove that there is a moon or planet in a solar system that drifts inwards, you can't contradict this key element phenomena in orbital system.
QuoteThe key idea is that ALL the planets and ALL the moons in the solar system are drifting outwards over time.Yes, but they're not. All of Mars' moons and over half of Jupiter's moons are losing orbit.If you model depends on this idea, it is trivially falsified.
The friction is mostly between water and the sea floor, which is direct physical contact, and is where all the heat is generated.
Can you please specify one moon (around Mars or Jupiter) that we have measured its orbital radius and verify that it is really losing orbit?You know that we just assume that those moons are drifting outwards, but in reality we didn't confirm our hypothetical idea.
Just a simple example -Let's assume that you sit at a bus while it drive at 120 Km/sIf you set a friction between your hand to the bus body, does it mean that you set a friction between the bus and the road?
In the same token, a friction between water and the sea floor on the Earth can't set a friction between the Earth and the Moon.
Orbital objects as Moon and planets are losing gravity force over time. This is a normal activity in gravity. Therefore, the Moon increases its orbital radius (around the earth) over time.
See my prior post, giving measured numbers for Phobos, the moon with the largest orbital change per year of anything in the solar system. It has been repeatedly measured, not just assumed.
So, how could it be that an object at about 500 Km we call Asteroid, while a broken object about 25 Km we call moon...?
"Phobos orbits 6,000 km (3,700 mi) from the Martian surface, ... "So, this asteroid is very close to Mars.Mars radius about 3400 Km.So the ratio between mars radius to Phobos orbits from the Martian surface is 1:2.
At this ration it is clear that it is drifting inwards.
Please try to offer a real moon (not a small broken object) with a relative longer orbital radius (similar to the Earth moon ratio).
Lack of a large counterexample does not explain why suddenly you find it clear that Phobos orbit must be degrading when all the prior posts asserted otherwise.
All of Mars' moons and over half of Jupiter's moons are losing orbit.
All the big ones have positive orbital periods and lie outside geosync radius, so they all move outward per tidal forces.
strength of gravity
How much does gravity degrade over time?
Why does it only affect the moon and not Earth? How does gravity know to degrade only for masses that Dave Lev designates as 'real moons' and not for other masses made of the exact same component materials?
On the contrary. Your theory says it should move immediately quickly from the center since it cannot hold this high acceleration needed to maintain that 8 kpc radius at a whopping 217 km/sec.It shouldn't drift outward, but rather should never have been this far inward in the first place. Your idea of degraded gravity makes that problem even worse.
I've agreed to this several times before. It's not like you need permission from me.
Let's start the theory by the focusing on the Sun' orbital motion.http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
The second movement, which is described in most of astronomy books, is an oscillation of the Solar System from north to south and from south to north with respect to the galactic plane. The oscillation “upwards” and “downwards” is mainly established by the gravitational pull exerted by other bodies of the Solar System on the Sun, i.e. planets, asteroids, etc. The speed of this movement is 7 km/s.[\i]
Please let me know if you agree with all of that (again - based on the assumptions that the two key elements are fully correct)
I will introduce the theory step by step, based on those two elements and pure gravity force.In each step I would mostly appreciate to get your feedback (again - based on the idea that those two elements are fully correct.)
I am assuming your two elements are correct. I am staying quiet about the implications of those two elements since they've not really been spelled out. I cannot make predictions from them yet, so I cannot falsify them.
1. The Virtual sun host (Orange ball) is located at the same distance from the galactic disc plane while it orbits around the galaxy (gray line in one article or dashed white line in the other)?2. The Virtual sun host orbital velocity around the galaxy is lower than "the actual motion of the sun" (Green line). Less than 210 Km/s instead of 220 Km/s?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/01/2019 13:27:471. The Virtual sun host (Orange ball) is located at the same distance from the galactic disc plane while it orbits around the galaxy (gray line in one article or dashed white line in the other)?2. The Virtual sun host orbital velocity around the galaxy is lower than "the actual motion of the sun" (Green line). Less than 210 Km/s instead of 220 Km/s?Sorry, neither of these is correct so the resultant conclusion is also wrong. Motion and velocities are only relative based upon perspective. You are ignoring that.
For instance, considering the perspective of the orbits of Mercury and Venus relative to the plane of the ecliptic, we assign Mercury a velocity of 47.89 km/s and Venus one of 35.03 km/s, a large difference.
But if we consider the velocity of the Sun and its forward evolution in time relative to the CMB
in the following computations the inclination of the plane of the ecliptic is ignored
Note also that as we increase distance from the Sun, the velocities decrease until Neptune has a velocity only .001 km/s different from the base velocity of the Sun.
Relative velocities equalize with a larger perspective.
It shows the vertical motion, same as the other diagram, corresponding to the 7 km/sec component of the helix (the one the bioCab attributes to gravity from our own planets). The other article didn't give a period to the wiggle, but this one says every 62 million years. That's about 4 waves per trip around the galaxy, less than the tighter frequency depicted in their image, and far less than the dense helix depicted in the bioCab simulation.