0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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, 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?
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, 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?
So where can we find that astrophysicist?
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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:56:49Do 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
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:56:49Do 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?
Galactic structures don't "look" solid. Again, they are mostly gas and we know this.
Thanks for your honest answer.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.
If the bar behave as a stable structure
Why are you arguing about this "bar" thing anyway? It already follows the predicted Keplerian curve on the graph
I don't know what you think is a mystery about it.
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.
Therefore it must be stable structure and there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at 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?
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?
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?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:12:19Therefore 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:12:19Therefore it must be stable structure and there is no need for dark matter to explain the orbital velocity at the Bar.
but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?
The bar is a key element in the spiral galaxy.
The bar looks stable
Quote from: Dave Lev on 01/07/2022 21:19:28but you think that it is needed for the spiral arms?Yes.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:19The bar looks stableSo does a picture of a swarm of bees
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:19The bar looks stable
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."
Well, in a swarm of bees they are bonded together by their common wish to stay together.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/07/2022 06:31:47Well, 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..
All the stars there are bonded together by their mutual gravitational attraction and set the fixed shape of the Globular_cluster.So, how can you claim that this fixed shape of Globular_cluster is just liqued.
Is it just to confuse the other side?
The stars are moving in the globular cluster so the shape is not fixed.
How can you compare a swarm of bees to liquid?
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.
That gravity can bond them in a fixed shape as M80