0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
After all your spiral types' formulas, I wonder which kind of formula our scientists have used in order to confirm the density wave theory.
As you claim that:Quote from: Halc on 06/04/2019 15:12:25This is clearly beyond the middle school mathematics skills of the reader, so I'll do it myself.Formula for length (exact, not approximation) of type B spiral between two radius R values is ΔR/sinΦ. My initial difficultly was trying to make it a function of the number of laps (or cycles), but even that can be worked out from the above formula.So, would you kindly show me how our scientists have proved any sort of spiral formula by their density wave theory?
This is clearly beyond the middle school mathematics skills of the reader, so I'll do it myself.Formula for length (exact, not approximation) of type B spiral between two radius R values is ΔR/sinΦ. My initial difficultly was trying to make it a function of the number of laps (or cycles), but even that can be worked out from the above formula.
Somehow, I have full confidence that they have never ever used any sort of spiral formulas or middle school mathematics which you are offering.
Nobody claimed that this information was needed for density wave theory.
So, based on the density wave our scientists gave themselves a waiver to skip the need for using any kind of formula for the spiral galaxy shape.However, when it comes to me, than even the basic spiral formula which is available in the web is not good enough.
I have offered clear explanation about the spiral arms. I have solved the rotation curve problem based on that formula at the web.
Actually, based on your reply I clearly see that you didn't even try to understand my message.
You only focus on finding negative aspects before understanding the theory.
Actually, you represents the good old science approach as we had in the past.
Few centuries ago, our scientists were positively sure that we are the center of the Universe.
I'm lucky that no one is going to set me on jail.
They surly see all the contradictions in their theory - But they still believe that their theory is here to stay forever and ever.
At Galileo's days the science community was controlled by the Catholic Church.
At that time no one there has tried to understand what that person (Galileo) has found. They didn't want to hear any other idea.
It is clear to me that you have no willing to understand my theory.
However, I do appreciate your knowledge in science and all your effort to convince me that my theory is incorrect.
So, what is needed to convince you that there is a fatal mistake in the current theory?
What kind of evidence will help you to understand that my theory is correct?Or is it too much to ask?
And since I've said the formula on the web (which gives an approximate length of an arm segment) is good enough, I've been waiting to see how this solves the rotation curve problem, but you just will not move on to that part.You seem to deny F=ma, so your solution had better find a good replacement for that, because the whole rotation curve problem revolves around it.
All my theory is based on Newton law including F=ma.
However, if you agree to accept the following formula:P = 2πR + πΔRThan let me explain it again:A star must ALWAYS stay at the arm. (Let's ignore the bridge or any sort of gateway between the arms).However, as it stay in the arm it also drifts constantly outwards in the spiral arm.By doing so, it cross a length of P (in the spiral arm) at a given time TTherefore, if at t=0 the radius is R1, at t=T it will drift outwards to the radius R2.The total length that it crosses in the spiral arm is represented by the following formula (for one full orbital cycle):P = 2πR + π(R2-R1) = 2πR + πΔR
If the star was keeping his orbital radius than the expected total lenth that it had to cross at time T (in a cycle) was 2πR.
However, as it drifts outwards in the spiral arms (at the same time T) and based on that formula we have found that it cross 2πR + πΔR.
Therefore, as the star drifts from R1 to R2 (while it stay at the spiral arm) it increases the length that it cross by πΔR comparing to a star that stay at the same radius (R1).
If you understand that:
Let's use the following example:Let's assume that star A is located at radius 4KPC from the center.We know that at that distance it is expected to have an orbital velocity of 200Km/sSo, if the star will stay at that radius during time interval T, it will cross one full cycle which is represented by a length of 2πR (R=4KPC).
So, by definition 2πR/T (at R=4KPC) = 200km/s.
Let's look at another star that is located at R=8KPC.In order to cross the full cycle in the same T it is clear that its orbital velocity should be double = 400Km/s.
Our sun is located at a radius which is greater than 8KPC.At our location the expected orbital velocity should be 460 Km/s.
That actually represents the orbital velocity of the arm.So, at our location, the arm orbits at 460Km/s.
At 8KPC it orbits at 400Km/sAt 4KPC it orbits at 200Km/sBut now we can see the great impact of ΔP = πΔR.
This ΔP represents the length that the star drifts outwards in the arm.
Due to the spiral shape of the arm the star at time interval T increases its radius by ΔR= R2-R1 = 8KPC - 4KPC = 4KPC,
But it also moved backwards.so ΔP↑ - Vector of the drifting outwards (length) in the spiral arm per time interval TΔR↑ - Vector of the increased radius per time interval T.ΔB↑ - Vector of the length that the star moves backwards per time interval T.ΔP↑= ΔR↑ + ΔB↑So, ΔB/T gives the negative orbital velocity of the star.
Therefore, we know that the orbital velocity of the arm at the Sun location is 460 Km/s. so if the sun had to stay at the same radius and at the arm, it had to increase its velocity to 460Km/s.However, as it drifts backwards in the arm at ΔB it reduces its velocity to 220Km/s.Therefore,ΔB/T = 460-220 = 240Km/sSo ΔB represents the backwards velocity of the sun in the arm, which is 240Km/s.
NowOur scientists don't think about that ΔB vector.Therefore, In order to stay at the same radius and keep the velocity at 220Km/s, the Sun MUST exit from the arm.That is their fatal mistake.
The Sun will stay at the arm as long as it can, but it must drift outwards.
That drifting outwards set the spiral shape of the arms in the galaxy.
I hope that by know you understand why the arm is moving at our location at 460Km/s while the orbital velocity of the Sun is only 220Km/s.
Once you understand that key information I will answer other questions.
Motion with a nonzero net ΔR is not orbital, but yes, I agree with the calculation.
I have found the key evidence which proves my theory:
http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/204If you look carefully, there are bridges between the arms:
If we could monitor it carefully, we should see that the aria between the arms (without the bridge is totaly empty from any sort of star!!!) If we focus on the Mapping hydrogen, we get the following:http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/202"the hydrogen emission is more widespread than the visual data and shows regions of the galaxy that at visual frequencies are obscured by dust, as well as bridges or spurs that connect spiral arms.."
It is also stated:"the hydrogen data shows more detailed structure than the visual data, including many "holes" or bubbles in the hydrogen emission"So, do you agree that between the arms there are many "holes" or bubbles without even a single star?
gas may expand away from the star formation regions, driven by enormous stellar winds. This local movement may explain the bubbles so obvious in most hydrogen maps of other galaxies.
This is how real theory works -You set an expectation - and you prove it by real evidence!!!
Therefore do you agree that this article by itself proves that my theory is correct by 100%?
The Sun doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy.Therefore, there is no gravity bonding between the Sun and the center of the galaxy (or the orbital sphere if you wish).
However, the main gravity bonding exists between the Sun and the local nearby stars.They hold each other by gravity.
However, it is important to understand that in any real orbital cycle ΔR is nonzero by definition.
ΔR can be few Pico mm per cycle or few Km per cycle, but it is always there!!!This is the highlight of my theory!Please, you have to accept this idea as is!!!
My whole theory is based on this element and all the other elements including VHP.
We can't argue again and again and... on each element.Please!!!
If you insist to argue again about those key elements at each discussion, than we clearly wasting our time.
On the contrary, the text says that it is the stars that clear these bubbles in the gas via their solar wind:
So, they believe that the Sun has to cross the galactic disc while it bobbles up and down.However, they ignore the key issue that the sun doesn't go up down, but it has also some inclination with regards to the galactic disc.
I also couldn't find any bobbling activity under Newton law.
So, there is no gravity force due to galactic disc and the Sun doesn't bobble around the galactic disc while it orbits around the galactic center.
The Sun had been formed is a gas cloud at the center of the galaxy near the SMBH.The matter in that gas cloud had to orbit around the center in some sort of tornado.This orbital motion crystallizes the matter into star/planets/moons system.So, the center of the gas cloud is the basic location of the VHP1.
Hence, as the Sun emerges from the gas cloud it already orbits around its VHP1.
This VHP1 has great impact on gravity force.
In order to understand that let me offer the following example about centrifugal:https://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-1_cosmological/physics/b7.htm
"If the rope in Fig 94 has the length of the seconds pendulum and the body travels around the hand 10 times per second, then the rope is subject to 400 times that load which it carries when the body simply hangs. ""The centrifugal field, generated under these conditions is therefore 400 times as strong as the gravitational field. People have succeeded in generating such fields in excess of 100 000 times the gravitational field (Ultra-centrifuge) "So, the centrifugal can increase the gravitational field by even 100 000 times.
In the same to token, the VHP1 can increase significantly the impact of the Sun mass by gravitational field .
The outcome is, that when we set the gravitational calculation, we have to know the real value/impact of the Sun mass at VHP1.
Based on the radius between the Sun to the VHP1 and the orbital velocity we can extract/estimate the Sun mass gravitational field at the VHP1 location.
So, the orbital motion of the Sun around the VHP1, can increase dramatically the impact of the Sun mass.
Let's assume that each star has the same Sun mass.Our scientists might claim that based on this density and the mass per each star , there is not enough gravity force in order to hold them together - and they are fully correct.However, due to the orbital motion of each star around its unique VHP1, the effected mass of each star at its unique VHP1 could be 1,000 Sun mass (We must verify this number).
So, the orbital motion of a star around its VHP1 significantly increases the impact of its mass. (like gyroscope)
How can the sun orbit itself?You've basically described an ideal cloud that collapses into a unary solar system like ours. The star is the mass around which everything else orbits, because everything else has mass that is dwarfed by the primary.
You believe that the Sun had been formed as the matter collapses to the center of the gas cloud.
Let's start from the excretion disc around the SMBH.In the excretion disc there is a plasma at a temp of 10^9 c.
This plasma includes a new quarks, Atoms and molecular which had been formed by the Ultra high SMBH gravity force and the ultra velocity ( at about 0.3 speed of light)
As all of this new matter drifts outwards from the excretion disc it gets to the magnetic field around the SMBH.The Ultra high power of that magnetic field Push that mater upwards (or downwards) with regards to that disc (at almost 0.8 speed of light).
At some point, the Atom/Molecular falls back to the galactic disc (but outwards the SMBH magnetic fields).As the new born molecular gets to the galactic disc, it starts to orbit around the SMBH.
At that point it had also decreased its temp to lower lever (I assume to 10^6 c).
However, the orbital momentum around the SMBH, push the new born molecular to gather in a hot gas clouds.
Each gas cloud set a very strong gravity force with the nearby SMBH.
The gravity force had been set between the center of the SMBH to the center of that hot gas cloud (Let's call this center - VHP1)
However, that SMBH great gravity force, also force the matter in the gas cloud to orbit around the center of the cloud (VHP1) at a very fast speed.
We can compare it to a tornado storm in the gas cloud, while the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) is connected by gravity to the SMBH.
"Definitions: A tornado is "a violently rotating column of air.."
So, this violently rotating column/cloud push the matter away from the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) to the edge of the gas could.
By doing so, there is high pressure in the matter as it gets to the edge of the cloud.
This high pressure, High temp (10^6) and high orbital velocity set the crystallization process of the Sun.
In the first phase, we might find many small hot objects that orbit around VHP1.However, over time those objects merge with each other and set the Sun and all the other planets and moons,
So, the sun had been formed from the matter which had been pushed away from the center (VHP1). Therefore, its temp at day one is 10^6 c. (Any planet and moon, has the same temp and the same matter as the Sun in its first day.)
Therefore, the Sun (and all its planets & moons) had been crystallized while it orbits around the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) and not IN the center of the gas cloud.
Therefore, when the Sun had been emerged from the gas cloud, it was already orbiting around the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) while this center orbits around the SMBH.
However, at this stage, there is no matter at the center of the gas cloud (VHP1), while the SMBH still holds that VHP1 by gravity.
This activity force the sun to orbit around a virtual host point - VHP1 (that was the center of the gas cloud - but currently without any matter) , while that VHP1 orbits around the SMBH.
What I said was that the star must be at the center of gravity of the gas that comprises it. Thus an isolated gas cloud (need not be symmetrical) that collapses entirely into a star must put that star exactly at the center of gravity of the original gas cloud.
Quote from: Halc What I said was that the star must be at the center of gravity of the gas that comprises it. Thus an isolated gas cloud (need not be symmetrical) that collapses entirely into a star must put that star exactly at the center of gravity of the original gas cloud.Please be aware that we discuss about a gas cloud near the SMBH. So, you can't get any conclusion from a gas cloud which is not directly affected by a SMBH.
I say that a gas cloud near a SMBH doesn't set the star forming activity at the center of the gas cloud.
Why are you so sure that a new star must be formed at the center of the gas cloud that comprises it while this gas cloud is located near the SMBH and affected by its high magnetic power?
The Ultra high power of that magnetic field Push that mater upwards (or downwards) with regards to that disc
Can you please prove it by real evidence?
1. The Plasma in the accretion disc orbits at 0.3 speed of light, while its temp is 10^9c. Yes or no?
2. There are clear evidences that the matter from the accretion disc drifts outwards.
So far our scientists didn't find evidence for any sort of matter (Star, Planet, Moon or even Atom) which had been eaten by the SMBH. Yes or No?
3. There is a very strong magnetic field around the SMBH. Yes or no?
4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?
5. The molecular falls back to the galactic disc. Yes or no?
6. With regards to S2 - based on our observation, https://pages.uoregon.edu/imamura/323/lecture-2/sgrAbig.jpgA. We see clearly that S2 doesn't move exactly at the expected orbital cycle. Yes or No?
B. At 1992.23 the shift is about 0.2 Light days, while at 1998.36 the shift is 0.3 Light day. Yes or no?
C. If S2 is orbiting around a VHP1 with a radius of 0.3 Light day (while this VHP1 orbits around the SMBH), do you agree that this verification is exactly what we should see. Yes or no?
Quote4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?No. Nothing like that comes from the accretion disc. No such jet has ever been observed.
QuoteB. At 1992.23 the shift is about 0.2 Light days, while at 1998.36 the shift is 0.3 Light day. Yes or no?Don't know what shift is. You mean the length of the error bars?
Since we don't know the distribution of matter near its path, there is no clear expectation of exactly where it will go.
That analysis has been done (you did not link to such an analysis) and it has conclusively shows that S2 does not orbit a secondary mass.
No. All visual measurements of any SMBH are due to the matter being 'eaten' by it. If it doesn't pull in matter, it is entirely invisible. Ours is particularly starved for material, so it consumes matter at an unusually low rate, and thus emits far less radiation than a typical one.
QuoteI say that a gas cloud near a SMBH doesn't set the star forming activity at the center of the gas cloud.I carefully asked what you mean by those words, and as usual you ignored it. So I don't know what you mean by 'set the star forming activity'.
QuoteWhy are you so sure that a new star must be formed at the center of the gas cloud that comprises it while this gas cloud is located near the SMBH and affected by its high magnetic power? External forces are irrelevant. I am sure of my statement because of the way one computes center of mass. This is a simple geometric property and not even a law of physics. How does one find the center of mass of an object? How does one find the center of mass of an object affected by high magnetic powers of a nearby SMBH? The answer is the same for both since the SMBH and magnetic powers are not part of the calculation.
Why are you so sure that a new star must be formed at the center of the gas cloud that comprises it while this gas cloud is located near the SMBH and affected by its high magnetic power?
Quote from: HalcQuote4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?No. Nothing like that comes from the accretion disc. No such jet has ever been observed.https://phys.org/news/2012-05-ghostly-gamma-ray-blast-milky-center.htmlYes, there are clear evidences!
Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets," he said."Our scientists have totally got lost.They don't have even a clue about the meaning of that jet.The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated to be at the range of 3 suns mass.How can 3 sun mass eject 10,000 sun mass?
However - Over time, that 3 Sun mass set that 10,000 sun mass in the jet stream.
In the same token - The only power which could boost that jet is the magnetic power.
You call it error bar.I call it "shift".So, how can you justify that "error bar"?
If you "don't know the distribution of matter near its path" how can you claim that this is the ultimate source for the "error bar"?
Quote from: HalcWhat one would see is a regular deviation apparent in a Fourier transform of the position data. That analysis has been done (you did not link to such an analysis) and it has conclusively shows that S2 does not orbit a secondary mass.What kind of analysis had been set to prove that S2 doesn't orbit a secondary mass?
What one would see is a regular deviation apparent in a Fourier transform of the position data. That analysis has been done (you did not link to such an analysis) and it has conclusively shows that S2 does not orbit a secondary mass.
In any case - As I have stated - there is no real mass at VHP1. It is a virtual point of mass.
Quote from: HalcSo I don't know what you mean by 'set the star forming activity'.It means - the crystallization process of the molecular in the gas cloud.
So I don't know what you mean by 'set the star forming activity'.
Sorry - I totally disagree with your following statement: "External forces are irrelevant.". The SMBH has a great impact on the nearby gas cloud
Its ultra high gravity force sets the crystallization process at the gas cloud.
I agree that at the first stage the SMBH sets the gravity bonding with the Gas cloud center of mass. However, after the bonding, as the matter in the gas orbit around the center of the gas cloud, the SMBH will hold that center by gravity as long as needed.
For example -If during the crystallization process, there will be a ring of matter/objects which orbits around the center at a radius of R (while the center is totally empty),
than I assume that you agree that the SMBH will continue to hold the center (Let's call this center VHP1).
I claim that even if all the matter in the ring will crystallized to one star, the SMBH will continue to hold this VHP1 while the star orbits around that point with a radius R.
By that activity, the SMBH had increased the gravity force impact of that star by several hundreds or thousands.
So, our sun could set a gravity force which is equivalent to 1000 Sun mass just due to the orbital movement around VHP1. That is correct to S2 and any star in the galaxy.
Magnetic fields have no impact on light. It carries no charge.
Those jets do not come from the accretion disk. They come from the poles. That jet always exists, but is very weak for Sgr-A, as this article confirms. It is very apparent in other black holes (little ones, other galaxies), but it doesn't come from the disk and it is mostly gamma rays, not hydrogen.
Quote from: HalcMagnetic fields have no impact on light. It carries no charge.It is stated:"The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole, which may not be aligned with the Milky Way."
It is also stated:"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets."
They specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."
Therefore, this is a clear indication for the Plasma/hot matter which had been squirted out from the accretion disc.
It is also stated clearly that the "magnetic field kept it tightly focused" and "The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole"So, why do you insist again and again to show that any issue that I highlight is incorrect by definition even if there is clear evidence?
QuoteThey specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."Yes, I agree with that.
Your comments seem to imply that the jets come directly from the disk, and are not just powered by the disk.