MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Orbital Planes (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
In AE, we are forced to make sense of the universe only with the established rules we have at hand...

I'm somewhat surprised at you saying this, Ish, given that the intuition, common sense and experience us mortals have to hand is in general not applicable to planetary dynamics; while what the exalted astros have established are ill-founded rules in an unknown state of corruption, with false paradigm alarm bells going off all over the place.

No. What I mean is that an AE solution cannot require the introduction of speculative components like....well...er....ether!

(In my defence, I think it's perfectly acceptable in the earliest, thinking-out-loud phase of speculative imaginings)

Furthermore, the more basic the components used, the more certain is the solution. Solving a problem in physics with String Theory doesn't count for much at all. Solving it with Newtonian Physics -- now that's something!

Two or three rotations should be more than enough to turn our spiral into a wheel (well....we should find out how many it should take -- which should not be too hard!).

OK, for small objects in near circular orbits around a big one, velocity varies with distance from the centre according to the equation...

What if stars are as a rule on highly elliptical orbits around the centre of the galaxy? Are there any statistical models that show the different shapes we are just what you get if you happen to take snapshots at different times? Can it be shown that the various shapes can't be different stages in the same sequence?

Oh I really like this idea. I had something similar written a coupla days ago (that galactic shapes were just stages in the galactic life cycle -- where have we seen that before?) but your notion is more advanced (and I didn't write my notion down here because it was getting rather close to a *touchy subject*). I can imagine galaxies folding and unfolding in and out on themselves in complex patterns established over trillions of years -- patterns not unlike those made by six-pointed snowflakes. Beautiful.

So, should it be too hard to work out how the shape of a galaxy evolves with each turn and how many turns it has had time to complete?

Yes. But I am saying that we ignore the "observations" and just apply Newton to the Galaxy in abstract. We've had so much success with Newton in the Solar System, I suspect we may find some enlightening surprises if we stick with him through the rest of the universe.

What happens to the galactic mass if we assume it's just a bunch of stars orbiting a central mass in much the same way that the asteroid belt orbits the Sun?

As for stars going in "all different directions," that should not surprise. The moons orbiting Jupiter go in "different directions" too -- but still generally circle Sol. Obviously, many stars are actually in orbit around other stars -- which may themselves orbit still others. Ignore all that as just so much background noise and treat the Galaxy as an abstraction.

Is there then something very odd about its spiral structure?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Is there then something very odd about its spiral structure?

I once had flu -- ie was having a mind-altered temporal experience -- and placed a soluble aspirin into a glass of water. As I swirled the dissolving aspirin it formed a perfect spiral galaxy on the surface of the water. In front of my entranced eyes it then proceeded to promptly disappear. I always assumed that this was clear proof that our galaxy was about to disappear. Obviously this has proved to be wrong since we are still here. But another thought has now replaced that one. The aspirin only formed that shape because it was floating on the water. Therefore it is clear that the galaxy 'rests' on Ishmael's ether.
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
The aspirin only formed that shape because it was floating on the water. Therefore it is clear that the galaxy 'rests' on Ishmael's ether.

Reminds me of something I once thought about the galaxy and the solar systems and the rotation of the planets. I was just a kid at the time so it's probably nonsense.

What if the galaxy is swimming through space (much in the way your aspirin would if you gave it a nudge) and what if the solar system is swimming through the galaxy?

Such a system would make the planets 'look' like they were spinning but in actual fact it is 'observable space' which spins.

What if earth and the other planets were not actually spinning? What if the heavens were spinning around and we were stationary (in as much as we don't spin but swim)?

I wish I had the lingo and math for this.

The galaxy clearly spins around (or it wouldn't have such a shape). If earth had no spin, the stars - to an observer - would spin round the earth. What would that look like? It would presumably look exactly as it does. Rotating heavens.

Is it possible that planets don't really spin at all?
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just want to say for the record that I don't really believe this drivel. I suppose I just wanted to see what kind of response it got. I always thought we poke fun at pre-Galileo perceptions with bad reason because folk were just describing what they saw.

So do little kids.

Soon my wee boy will say "The sun goes round the earth".

Sherlock Holmes thought the same in the early 20th century (it was I believe a revelation of the later stories) and no one could call him a fool.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I had another thought the other day. If the universe happened to be expanding, and that speed happened to be presently a hundred and eight six thousand miles per second, then the inhabitants of that universe would probably form the impression that nothing can travel faster than a hundred and eight-six thousand miles per second. I've got the maths that prove all this, but the cat's reading it and one doesn't like to bother him.
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
...that nothing can travel faster than a hundred and eight-six thousand miles per second.

Does anyone know, or remember, why on earth the speed of light is said to be unbeatable? It smacks of the "lightning can't strike in the same place twice" rule which is nonsense and plain silly (the question "why not?" opens a big box of fake rules that cliche filled granny doesn't want to deal with).

Is it the same for light speed? Does the question "why not?" pose more problems than solutions?

Or is it just because Einstein was using a mirror at the time and he needed the light to trim his beard?

If light is used to cast a shadow, and the speed of light is increased to one point 'below' the alleged maximum speed, as soon as the shadow has to travel vertically up a wall towards the object casting it, the speed of the shadow will exceed the speed of light. Mind you, if it did, there would be no light to cast the damn thing.

Ahhh, quandaries before my morning coffee!

P.S Is it possible that the planets are not individually rotating?
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I want to borrow Mick's cat...

...and run experiments on it!
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just remembered that the moon rotates so it's likely that many other things do too.

I'm just wondering what the AE take on this naturally observable idea (that space, the galaxy or the solar system spins but the planets don't) is. Ignore me! Oh, you are already?

Quite wise...
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Mind you...orbital physics on the galactic level is beyond me. From my layman's perspective, the spiral form of the Milky Way should be unsustainable. I've yet to be exposed to a proper explanation as to how the stars farthest from the galactic core can orbit the centre at the exact same rate as do the stars closest in.

I still currently assume such an explanation exists -- though disappointed so many times before. I would not be surprised at this point to find there is no explanation
.

Yes an explanation does exist. It just doesn't come from standard cosmology or Newtonian physics. The former because they refuse to accept that electromagnetism has any part to play in the universe and the latter because he was unaware of its potential as a stronger force than gravity, electromagnetism being discovered some time after Newton's laws were proposed.

The spiral nature of galaxies is well understood and reproducible by experiment.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Ish wrote:

Is it true (since we see the Milky Way overhead as a strip) that our Solar System orbital plane is at right angles to the plane of the galaxy?

Yes. I believe it is. Not quite 90 degrees but it's definitely toward the perpendicular

I believe it is perpendicular. The 'not quite 90°' maybe due to observational error.

Celestial mechanics says that not only should the two bodies in the dumbbell be in the same plane they should also have common perpendicular polar axes. It also states that any other configuration other than two rotating bodies is inherently unstable.

With this in mind our own Solar System is quite obviously far from the ideal. And when we consider that of over 100 Solar Systems that have so far been observed the vast majority are close orbiting binary pairs comprising a bright white dwarf star (similar to our Sun) and a companion large red dwarf/gas giant.

Our Solar System is a recent 'traffic accident' where the original norm (two bodies in a close binary coupling) has been radically disturbed. Very recently in my view.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Jupiter is the only gas giant in our system that could fulfil the role of the Sun's companion. The other gas giants have vastly divergent axial tilts so therefore could not be part of the present Solar System. Nor could any of the inner rocky planets. The Moon and Mercury are virtually identical, have very close axial tilts to Jupiter, look virtually the same as most of it moons and are probably original satellites of that gas giant.

Earth and Mars are twin planets right down to the geography and BLUE sky (that's right Mars has a blue sky). They both have the same axial tilt which is virtually the same as Saturn. So it is not unreasonable to propose that Earth and Mars are former planets of Saturn.

That leaves Venus, described by orthodox astronomy as an enigma. It generates its own heat, its orbit is retrograde, has a magneto-tail that stretches almost to the moon, it has massive lightning storms that can't be explained and it is like no other rocky planet -- almost.

There is no mystery concerning Venus if we only see things for what they are. Orthodox astronomy tends to miss things even when they are in plain sight. It's a consequence of being taught to only see what you believe. Venus has a twin and astronomers have spent billions of dollars studying it. But the penny still hasn't dropped even when one NASA scientist said in the company of his peers: 'IT LOOKS JUST LIKE VENUS'

That's because it is just like Venus. Its name is TITAN. It's another enigma. .Titan generates its own heat, its orbit is retrograde, has a magneto-tail that reacts with Saturn (its sun), it has lightning that can't be explained and it is like no other rocky planet or moon. To borrow a classic phrase from Mick -- even the dog could work that one out.

Once we put the little knobbly things back with their brother and sister knobbly things we are left with five stars, two of which comprise the original binary pair -- Sol and Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are not from around here; they are recent interlopers.
They were once wandering stars just like Barnard's Star that were captured by the Sun's powerful magnetic field.

Before this Jupiter looked just like the companion stars we now see in most of the binary solar systems we observe. Its massive red corona extended beyond the orbit of the Earth making it appear four times larger than it is now. Its planets, which were once within the protective 'shell' of its red corona, were eventually exposed to the harsh light of a new sun producing the view that we now see.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Ish wrote:

Oh I really like this idea. I had something similar written a coupla days ago (that galactic shapes were just stages in the galactic life cycle -- where have we seen that before?) but your notion is more advanced (and I didn't write my notion down here because it was getting rather close to a *touchy subject*). I can imagine galaxies folding and unfolding in and out on themselves in complex patterns established over trillions of years -- patterns not unlike those made by six-pointed snowflakes. Beautiful.

Just because orthos can't explain the life cycle of galaxies doesn't mean it can't be done.

You can see the stages of galaxy formation here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040913plasma-galaxy.jpg

Yes. But I am saying that we ignore the "observations" and just apply Newton to the Galaxy in abstract.

So we ignore what we see and find abstract concepts to explain what it should be. Sounds positively Einsteinian or dare I say Platonic even. Let's ignore the mundane universe we see and use Newton to come up with one that is more perfect. Sound terribly like Ptolemy -- we'll just bung in another epicycle cause it works with Newton.

We've had so much success with Newton in the Solar System, I suspect we may find some enlightening surprises if we stick with him through the rest of the universe
.
And what success would that be? The fact that virtually every planet in the Solar System violates the law of rotating bodies contradicts Newton at the most basic level. Everything that does not share a polar axis parallel to the Sun's is obviously not from around here.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If Titan is like Venus I much prefer my explanation -- that they just happen to be at similar Gaian stages of their life-cycles -- than all this hurling of thunderbolts around the sky.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh yes, and all this changing of orbital tilts and other Big Stuff is just the way l'il ol' worlds get to alter their local parameters so they can go about changing temperature, growing life, stuff like that. We call it The Precession of the Equinoxes here on earth because we've reached the stage of developing intelligent life but not particularly intelligent life.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
If Titan is like Venus I much prefer my explanation -- that they just happen to be at similar Gaian stages of their life-cycles -- than all this hurling of thunderbolts around the sky.

Exactly.

Electric Universe is just another manifestation of the preference of some for the big and spectacular.

AE tells us that, if an explanation requires fireworks -- it's probably wrong.

There are far simpler means to explain most everything Komori has mentioned but I am not at liberty to divulge.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 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