MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Galaxies are always Binary Systems? (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote


From what we now observe in the visible Universe most systems appear to be binary systems. Though Galaxy Clusters appear to be an agglomeration of matter they are on closer view composed of dozens of individual galaxies.

A galaxy is always the same basic configuration. It contains a binary central mass with two radial spiral arms. The centre appears to be a single mass rotating around central core, but the core is usually obscured by a dense matter cloud.

Galaxies are always Binary Systems.

The picture above is of Galaxy M81 and the smaller images below are of an actual simulation of experiments produced by Physicist Anthony Peratt in his Los Alamos laboratory.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
It contains a binary central mass with two radial spiral arms. The centre appears to be a single mass rotating around central core, but the core is usually obscured by a dense matter cloud.
Galaxies are always Binary Systems
.

Okay, so two 'central masses' move together - presumably a gravitational pull towards each other - and for some reason do not collide - why? If the pull is direct then they should collide. For the two masses to start circling each other when they get close there must be another force at work repelling each other. Kind of like magnets repelling - could magnetic forces repel close masses, whilst gravitational forces attract them, keeping both in a constant state? Don't know enough about 'magnetism' as a force....... 'more research needed'.
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well the standard answer is that there is a dense gravitational black hole at the core of the Galaxy. But the standard answer can't explain why Galaxies all take on the classic twin spiral shape. Nor can it explain how stars at the outer reaches of the arms violate the inverse square law. For some inexplicable reason standard gravity laws don't apply. So the answer to your question is if gravity laws don't apply we have to find a law that does apply without resorting to theoretical mystery forces that can neither be seen nor reproduced.

The Universe doesn't do things the hard way; it does things with simplicity.

The simplicity that allows a six-year-old to understand the reason why a steel ball can be picked up with a tiny horseshoe magnet. The Universe is that simple.

Our perception of a wholly inexplicable and complicated Universe is born out of two interlocking philosophies -- conventional wisdom based on expert opinion; both of which are completely bogus. Conventional wisdom is almost always wrong and Experts use their knowledge advantage to serve their own agendas.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Nor can it explain how stars at the outer reaches of the arms violate the inverse square law.

Please, excuse my ignorance, but in what way do they violate the inverse square law??
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Pulp wrote:

Please, excuse my ignorance, but in what way do they violate the inverse square law??

Velocity decreased with distance is a Standard law of Newtonian physics
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Please don't be tiresomely gnomic, Komoro.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

According to gravitation equations bodies orbiting close to the gravitation centre orbit faster than those at greater distances. Our Solar system appears to comply with this law; Mercury orbits quicker than Pluto. But in Galaxies this law is not obeyed. Bodies in the outer spiral arms orbit at the same speed as those close to the Galaxy core. Cosmologists can't explain this without resorting to mysterious dark matter forces. Nor can they explain why Galaxies are composed of two spiral arms. If gravity is the only force at work it should be a giant disc of matter. Gravity is a linear force that doesn't bend or twist to form spiral arms.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Let that be a lesson to all you other tiresome sods. And let's have the solution from those of you who are not proponents of the Electric Universe.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A galaxy is always the same basic configuration. It contains a binary central mass with two radial spiral arms.

Unfortunately, it's not clear from this picture that the central, bright area is even lobed, let alone binary. Got any better illustrations?

The picture above is of Galaxy M81 and the smaller images below are of an actual simulation of experiments produced by Physicist Anthony Peratt in his Los Alamos laboratory.

Unfortunately, while the resemblance is remarkable and perhaps telling, there is also a significant difference: in the final lab picture, the core is clearly binary and the arms clearly trail from the two halves; whereas in the actual galaxy, the arms almost form a ring with the core surrounded by a rarefied region. Again, got any more complete illustrations?

Okay, so two 'central masses' move together - presumably a gravitational pull towards each other - and for some reason do not collide - why? If the pull is direct then they should collide.

This is a very common misconception, Pulpy. The force being in a straight line between the two does not necessarily mean the movement will be towards each other. It is not true to say "the Moon orbits Earth because she's falling towards us but keeps on missing."

It's all about velocity and acceleration (or force) being vectors that may or may not be aligned in different scenarios. Gravity by itself is enough to keep things going in circles (or ellipses). How it gets to be in that situation is, however, another matter.

For the two masses to start circling each other when they get close there must be another force at work repelling each other.

This is another minefield: tread carefully. Who said the two masses headed straight for each other and then started circling each other? Komori will be pleased that you brought magnetism into it, but it's a big picture and needs to be unfolded carefully.

Well the standard answer is that there is a dense gravitational black hole at the core of the Galaxy.

Is the standard answer that the Black Hole gathers the galaxy around it; or that the Black Hole forms at the centre of the galaxy?

Bodies in the outer spiral arms orbit at the same speed as those close to the Galaxy core. Cosmologists can't explain this without resorting to mysterious dark matter forces.

3 possibilities spring immediately to mind:
i) This is a sure sign they dunno what they're talking about.
ii) This is perfectly good science: using the established law to predict the existence of something unobserved.
iii) This is perfectly good science and we know they've missed a trick because they don't take account of the stars that have already gone out. (Wiki says Hubble "established that the missing dark matter in our galaxy cannot solely consist of inherently faint and small stars.", but the reference only says they've "ruled out the possibility that red dwarf stars constitute the invisible matter".)

Note that the rate of rotation of the spiral arms is not necessarily the same as the rate of orbit of the stars. Wiki talks about stars moving into and out of the arms... and I dunno how good the foundations for the claim are. (Judging from the Curious Case of the Oort Cloud, statistical appearances can be deceptive; though the experts are as likely to get it wrong as anyone else.)

Nor can they explain why Galaxies are composed of two spiral arms.

That's a doozie. But is plasma physics any better at explaining why not all galaxies have 2 spiral arms?

Gravity is a linear force that doesn't bend or twist to form spiral arms.

Huh? Gravity would produce spirals coz the inside orbits faster than the outside.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This violation of the standard gravitation laws has another effect that helio-science is baffled by; what is euphemistically called the Solar Wind. Apart from the fact that 'a wind' can't exist in orthodoxy's vacuum of space, it has another startling property that again is unexplained by science. It increases acceleration as it moves further away from the Sun. As I mention earlier velocity decreases with distance; the wind should DECREASE in velocity as it moves further away from the gravitational centre. The explanation for this is impossible if gravity is the only force available, without conjuring up invented mysterious properties of gravity that have never before been seen or reproduced.

On Earth it's easy to accelerate charged particle. We've been doing it for decades in particle accelerators. Particles can be accelerated to close to the speed of light, all you have to do is place them in an electromagnetic field. That's how particle accelerators and cyclotrons work.

But orthodoxy doesn't have the luxury of using scientific experiment to explain natural phenomena in Space. They a priori KNOW thanks to Einstein that electromagnetic laws don't apply in Space. So experimental proof is rejected -- well in truth, it's not even considered. Cosmology is a totally theoretical discipline that hasn't bothered about cause and effect since Einstein told them it wasn't necessary.

Everything in the Universe can be explained by gravity and mathematical equations. When it can't, which is pretty much all the time these day, since we've put very hi tech cameras and probes into Space, the only recourse is to explain it away with weird science -- gravity waves, magnetic flux, dark forces -- anything that seems rational to them. And if they can back engineer a mathematical equation to suit so much the better.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Apart from the fact that 'a wind' can't exist in orthodoxy's vacuum of space

This self-contradiction is a worrying trend, KomoriMate.

Orthodoxy acknowledges that there is a Solar Wind; and to at least that very extent, they acknowledge that the space around the Sun is not a vacuum. They not long ago retrieved a probe sent to collect bits of it.

It increases acceleration as it moves further away from the Sun.

This requires caution and clarity.

Under gravity alone, the velocity goes as the root of 1/r: it slows down with distance.

But the acceleration goes as minus 1/r-squared, which increases with distance: it slows down less and less quickly.

Are you saying the speed of the Solar Wind has been directly measured and it gets faster the farther it is from the Sun?

They a priori KNOW thanks to Einstein that electromagnetic laws don't apply in Space.

Smacks of a crude misrepresentation, that. Einstein explicitly asserts that laws of physics are independent of the frame of reference of the observer.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
But the acceleration goes as minus 1/r-squared, which increases with distance: it slows down less and less quickly.

It still supposed it slows down, that's the point. The Solar Wind doesn't, it continues to accelerate.

Are you saying the speed of the Solar Wind has been directly measured and it gets faster the farther it is from the Sun?

Yes, Dan, the various probes sent to study the Sun have verified this effect. Orthodoxy was amazed (Yet Again) at this fact.

Smacks of a crude misrepresentation, that. Einstein explicitly asserts that laws of physics are independent of the frame of reference of the observer.

Fucksake, Dan, modern cosmology is rooted in Einstein's THEORY of Relativity. There hasn't been a PHYSICIST in the discipline for 100 years; they're all Mathematicians.

The Theory says the Sun obeys Eddington's Gas Laws in a Vacuum -- it doesn't, it's the complete reverse

Theory says comets are dirty snowballs -- they're not, they're solid rock made of the same matter like everything in the inner Solar System

Theory says the Solar winds should obey the laws of acceleration -- they don't, they are the complete reverse.

Theory says that the planets of the Solar System were formed where we see them today -- observation shows there is 1 chance in 100 and rising that this is so.

Theory says that the long range space probes (Voyager, Pathfinder etc.) should continue out of the Solar System -- they're not. Observation shows that at least six and possibly more are slowing down or off course by millions of miles (for no apparent reason).

Theory says that the Sun has increasing density as you move closer to the core where density is the greatest; - it isn't. Helio-seismologists discovered some time ago that it's Isodense (even density throughout)

Everything in modern cosmology is based on Relativity and Big Bang THEORY. That is why virtually everything that has been DISCOVERED since the Space Age is inexplicable. None of it has ever been predicted by cosmologists. The Science is constantly AMAZED.

WHY?

If the science is so RIGHT how come it can't PREDICT anything that falls within its purview?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:

3 possibilities spring immediately to mind:
i) This is a sure sign they dunno what they're talking about
.

This one is the only one that explains the true situation

ii) This is perfectly good science: using the established law to predict the existence of something unobserved.

This one is a non starter for two reasons:
1. Using established laws their level of prediction is abysmally poor -- zero in fact
2. After close observation they were 'amazed' and then retrospectively still couldn't explain it with established laws.

iii) This is perfectly good science and we know they've missed a trick because they don't take account of the stars that have already gone out.

This is also a false premise. There is no good evidence that stars extinguish at all via self immolation from thermonuclear fusion or any other means. In fact the current evidence is that stars are not thermonuclear fusion reactors at all. Another example of using established laws to predict something that is hopelessly wrong.

Perfectly good science is to use observation to determine cause and effect.
Perfectly mathematical science is to theorise an effect and find any explanation for a cause that can be rationalised within the maths.

The nature of the Sun is a classic example of borrowing other disciplines' tools to explain what your theory can't. Eddington developed the current Thermonuclear Sun Hypothesis by force fitting gas laws with the then new science of nuclear energy. Astronomy didn't have a cogent theory of the Sun so it created one, not from observation but from laws that could be mathematically rationalised within their paradigm.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, Dan, the various probes sent to study the Sun have verified this effect. Orthodoxy was amazed (Yet Again) at this fact.

That ought to be earth-quaking stuff... but how did they measure the speed? And did they measure the density of the Wind as a function of distance from the Sun?

1. Using established laws their level of prediction is abysmally poor - zero in fact

Since the dark matter has been neither verified nor ruled out, we can't say what the level of prediction is here. So you must be talking about Establishment Space Science in general. But such hand-waving does not an argument make.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
That ought to be earth-quaking stuff... but how did they measure the speed? And did they measure the density of the Wind as a function of distance from the Sun?

Earth quaking stuff in conventional cosmology means it contradicts the core paradigm and one of the following tactics is employed:

-- It is not mentioned in submitted papers -- like the Sun's mysterious oscillation
-- An ad hoc explanation is sought within the paradigm -- like 'flavoured' neutrinos
-- It is marginalised or ignored.

I don't know the specifics of the instrumentation that was used but the multiple results were devastating and entirely unpredicted. The results totally contradicted their basic assumptions about the Solar Wind.

Then on January 20 2005 the fifth explosion produced a coronal mass ejection (CME) that achieved velocities incomparably greater than anything astronomers had seen before. While it often takes more than 24 hours for the charged particles of a solar outburst to reach the Earth, this one was a profound exception. Just thirty minutes after the explosion, Earth (some 96 million miles from the Sun) was immersed in what NASA scientists called 'the most intense storm in decades'.

Though the speeds of typical CMEs are impressive, and have posed a deep mystery for decades*, they do not come close to the speed of the January 20 ejection. Light from the Sun (or from a solar flare) reaches Earth in 8 minutes. An ejection reaching Earth in 30 minutes must be rapidly accelerated to velocities more than a quarter of the speed of light. From the traditional viewpoint, this is unthinkable. And yet it happened.

Since the dark matter has been neither verified nor ruled out, we can't say what the level of prediction is here. So you must be talking about Establishment Space Science in general. But such hand-waving does not an argument make
.
Dark Matter is not the product of established laws -- it's a theoretical construct required by Big Bang Theory to explain away a contradiction to established laws.

Since Dark Matter cannot be falsified it is a fictional circular argument. This isn't science it's pseudo-science.

There is a tiger outside your door and if you go outside it will attack you.
But you can't see it and you can't hear it and you can't smell it.
Ooh! And it's invisible and even if it doesn't attack you it will still be there.
Prove me wrong.


* the deep mystery is that ALL CMEs defy conventional physical laws.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group