Mordred

There is nothing in this entire post that makes sense in all honesty. Here is the problem, you've jumped far too many wide ranging arenas of influences to even have a hope of making sense of this. The only accurate description of the above is "word salad" There is zero science involved, you haven't described a single relation in any detail that we can even start. There isn't even enough here to begin to even speculate on. My suggestion is focus. Focus on one relation at a time, detail it properly including the mathematics. After all physics is mathematic relationship. Normally I would post related articles to study, but I can't even find a direction of interest enough to select a helpful reference

How is this proof? Yeesh your impossible. Believe in whatever pink unicorns you wish. I teach those with a desire to learn not those that ignore. Here this is probably too technical, but lets give it a shot. This extremely large measurement survey, explains regions of hearing, due to the spiral arms, if you look close enough it specifically mentions halo stars, thick and thin disk stars, stars moving in and out of the thick and thin disk. It also goes into EXTREMELY extensive details on velocity variations of stars born at different ages. Meaning they will move and seperate 50 km/s may not seem much at first but if you calculate that over time it's a HUGE variation in orbital velocity. In other words there is no hope they will keep pace with each other let alone all consistently stay with the spiral arms movement. Go ahead try it on a calculator. Take 220 km/s over one galactic year 220 million years. Then do the same for stars moving at say 200 km/s Do it for a range of speeds of different ages let's do a + and minus 50 km/s. If you do this you will see that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the stars to all maintain in the same region. http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/18/aa0959.pdf Even a mere 5 or 1 km/s difference in velocity will cause separation PARTICULARLY over 4 billion years...... Or 13 billion which is the estimated age of our galaxy. In order for stars to stay in groups they MUST have nearly EXACT velocities as well as traveling in nearly EXACT orbits of inclination. Here is the main page link on that survey paper. http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0411/ Let's see 4 billion years *365 days in a year* 24 hours per day* 60 minutes hour* 60 seconds per minute* the difference in the velocity of the two stars compared. Start with a mere 1 km/s difference. Get the point????? Why do they move at different velocities? Conservation of angular momentum AND [latex] force=ma[/latex]. BASIC mathematics. You apply a force of g on a one solar mass star then apply that same force on a 2 solar mass star. THEY WILL have different velocities and THEY WILL seperate over time. Especially over a period of billions of years. I requested you apply f=ma numerous times in this thread for that specific reason. This is also why I specifically stated this formula only applies to test particles. Test particles do not have mass [latex]v_r=\sqrt{\frac{G M_r}{R}}[/latex] "In physical theories, a test particle is an idealized model of an object whose physical properties (usually mass, charge, or size) are assumed to be negligible except for the property being studied, which is considered to be insufficient to alter the behavior of the rest of the system"

Are you sure our sun was birthed in the arm were currently in?

No problem, it will probably take some time to properly study the material. Take your time

Ok first off you need to realize, most of the mass influence is DM, not the stars. In actuality the total visible mass is a small % of a spiral galaxies mass profile. The majority of the mass is from dark matter. Also when you get down to it the gas nebulae, in clusters tends to have more mass than the stars being formed in that cluster. Makes sense as the nebulae is where stars are born. Now DM is in a spheroid distribution, with a significant mass influence along the disk including further along the disk than the baryonic matter. It is influenced by gravity, but due to no strong force doesn't clump. Gravity still concentrates it somewhat. Instead of trying to use the formula I posted earlier, we treat the galaxy as an ideal gas with an average density. More accurately mass density. When you include visible matter, dust, plasma and dark matter and energy density. The rotation curve follows a power law distribution. Individual star movements is meaningless, their contributions are negligible. For that matter, all the visible matter's influence is a minor contribution to the rotation curve. The majority of the mass isn't in the visible disk and spiral arms. Its in the dark matter halo that surrounds and encompasses our entire galaxy. Now calculating and testing the mass distribution of DM requires using gravitational lenses and its influence, (indirect detection) as we cannot directly measure it. One of the most accurate density profile power laws to date (afaik) For spiral galaxies is this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.5408 Several of the papers I posted show how to calculate rotation curve velocity including dark matter so that information is already provided.

Except as a side note To be honestly I don't know how simpler I can explain it. The answer to page 17 is DARK MATTER. It accounts for 80% the mass influence You cannot explain it using Newtons laws without fudging those laws like MOND does. These are not my theories, these are the theories every Astro physicist learns. These theories are designed to fit observational evidence. Dark matter went through over 70 years of argument on its need in regard to galaxy rotation curves. Far more knowledgable people than anyone on this entire forum have tried to prove dark matter wrong. Guess what the evidence still supports it.

Oh here is an important side note. Another reason for density waves is that gravity is NOT instantly felt. Newtons laws assumes it is. Relativity teaches us that gravity is limitted to c. Hence the further the particle is from a mass source. The longer it takes to react to a change in gravity. Why do you refuse to accept your wrong? I used Newtons laws to answer your questions. How many more articles and posters does it take to make you see your errors? You never once applied f=ma to the plasma as opposed to stars. Of course the gas moves faster than the stars would. Why can't you see that simple a formula in terms of the wave density? Which would travel faster? The test Particles ,then the lighter elements to the heavier metals, finally the stars Come on open your eyes a wee bit, I'm supplying professional peer reviewed references, to your unsupported model. Here is some more http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1310.7189&rct=j&q=density%20wave%20galaxy%20measurements%20pdf&ei=dlbxVNqTE8uvyASPjICABg&usg=AFQjCNH2AbT1qzjh_ufC1vAr59c8T4-ECQ&sig2=DNZ_m_3MtaPdoyQchOQYpQ Here is an excellent 116 page slide show. One line is of I interest "Different waves travel at different velocities" http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=73&ved=0CCUQFjACOEY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fobswww.unige.ch%2Flastro%2Fconferences%2Fsf2013%2Fpdf%2FPart-3-ISM.pdf&ei=LljxVMbKLoOVyASdxoD4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHV5ndJQFJAnbnb0LO2mC7_tlYfWg&sig2=vtaGeRJ5u0n7sBoQay6J1Q Ie there are more measured waves than just the spiral arms. You requested we cover DM later so my response was specifically not including such

Lol yep I recommend the feyman lectures first before you step into particle physics

Here is a brief rundown on nucleosynthesis. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March06/Padmanabhan/Nabhan2.html If you can afford a textbook Weinbergs "First three minutes" is excellent. However here is an older model free textbook. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis On the latter its chapter 3 the first chapters is GR, Riemann geometry and cosmology chapters. One large aspect we need to work on is your terminology, (scientific) no worries most new posters suffer this problem regardless of native language. I recommend these articles. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model Here is a free Special relativity low math book. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ However this site has some excellent material as well. In particular your more basic physics fields. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ There are three volumes for you this site in particular will step you up to being able to formulate your questions properly. (My signature has other training material)

Good point

Better question is where is helium formed. The answer is via fusion in stars. By the way your still confusing dark matter and dark energy. dark matter EoS w=0. Not -1 that's the cosmological constant aka dark energy

To accelerate any particle to c with rest mass is impossible. It would require infinite energy

No which reactions and particles are stable is a result of temperature, and volume. The term your looking for is thermal equilibrium. Loosely thermal equilibrium means in particles that are in thermal equilibrium become indistinguishable from any other particles in thermal equilibrium. Say you have two protons combine if the temperature is high enough they will quickly decay back to two separate protons from the diproton. With the above different particles drop out of thermal equilibrium at different times. This chronology will help. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe From that list atoms form much later than inflation.

Here lets do this. First off Keplarian orbits assume a point like mass, we know this doesn't work well for galaxies. So lets step it up a bit. First off we want a formula that includes the mass at every point as you increase in radius. So lets use one. Let's start with [latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M}{R}}[/latex] The above is velocity of a point mass. Now we don't want just stars we need to include all particles. They all add mass so we use density profiles. However we also want a formula that has in increasing mass as you increase the distance. [latex]v_r=\sqrt{\frac{G M_r}{R}}[/latex] However this leads to the Keplarian decline. We included all the visible mass. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve In other words the white visible line in the image, on this page, the top line is the measured rotation curve. The Kepler law that applies is his third law. With the latter formula it is still applicable. However the above is suitable for test Particles at a given radius. Test particles add no gravitational influence. Remember f=ma? Well the consequences of that formula means lighter particles will have a higher velocity than heavier particles. So stars will have a slower velocity than dust. Hrrm could this be why we have density waves???. I'll let you think about that after all the water in your sink draining is an accurate example. The force is due to vacuum pressure aka drain. The fluid approximation between water and gas uses the same relations mathematically. aka hydrodynamic rules. Now given this does that answer your above questions? The latter formula covers all the mass at a given radius. (Except dark matter) (Key note I intentionally used the simpler rotation curve formulas, most employ [latex]\rho[/latex] energy/mass density. I provided numerous links that reflect that

If you complete the analysis in your post one you should show a "Keplarian decline" in rotation curve. Assuming your sticking to strictly Newtonian. Observations show that Keplarian decline does not conform indicating unaccounted mass. Keplarian decline is not rigid body. Rigid body would have faster velocities as you measure from the center. I did its called dark matter which estimates place as 10* the mass of baryonic matter. (Stars etc) This is what we've been trying to get you to see throughout this thread. Now look at the Kepler curve as opposed to the galactic rotation curve on this page. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve Here is the commonly used power law profiles for the distribution of influence DM on the Milky way. There are of course alternative power law profiles. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro-Frenk-White_profile http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0425

Did you apply escape velocities as I requested earlier in this thread? Without dark matter the stars in the spiral arms would fly apart. Show this isn't so using your calculations. Those articles are in good agreement with density waves, the points you raised has to do with fine tuning. In any theory there is always competing models. Any good peer reviewed paper does a comparison. Also keep in mind separation distance from the BH the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the separation distance. This in and of itself means that the force of gravity from the bulge reduces the further you get from it. This also means the rotation should slow down the further you get from the bulge. I did not see this analysis in any of your posts. So if you want to convince anyone your going to need to show this is accounted for. PS might help to ask yourself, " why everyone with physics degrees of various levels disagree with your idea, that are involved in this thread ?" Granted not everyone involved in this thread have degrees but several of the posters do. Here follow these steps... http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/Haystack/rotation.html

No prob, it's a good detail for other readers, much of the second page of the universe geometry page uses Barbera Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology" She does a masterful job of breaking down the FLRW metric, in terms of single to multi component toy universes. (Even after studying close to 30 cosmology textbooks, hers is still my fav intro textbook)

Correct, the FLRW metric is homogeneous and isotropic so there is no change in energy/density/pressure at a specific point in time.

The main difference is in the scale, Gravity is localized, universe geometry is on the scale of the observable universe. Locally that curvature is negligible and impossible to measure. Key note in the latter case the change of energy density/ pressure is over time. In point of detail it was measuring the CMB, in terms of refractive effects that finally allowed us to determine the universe geometry as flat. If you look at the stress energy tensor formala above, whether curvature is due to energy/mass density or pressure is related. Energy density though is more accurate in terms of mass as non radiation and non relativistic matter, doesn't generate pressure. Ie slow moving matter. However gravity can and does exert pressure, good example is our atmosphere. Without gravity there would be no difference in atmospheric pressure. As you know the atmosphere causes refraction, The only difference between our atmosphere and the IGM intergalactic medium is the energy density and scale. Both can be described by vacuum density, with variations in vacuum density. The cosmological constant for example is positive energy density with a negative vacuum EoS. (Some papers described this a negative gravity which is highly misleading,and inaccurate)

Mwresearch, if you read my post, I never stated the Higgs field is the same as space time curvature. The Higgs field is a type of scalar field that can be described as a vacuum.Space time curvature is a vectoral Higgs does not replace gravity. The FLRW metric is 100% compatible with the Einstein field equations. The FLRW metric does correlate energy density/pressure relationships via [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]. Every particle and interaction contributes to the above relation in combination, to derive the curvature constant k. The acceleration equation also uses the same energy density/pressure relations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations "from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the FriedmannLemaîtreRobertsonWalker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density \!\rho and pressure \!p. The equations for negative spatial curvature were given by Friedmann in 1924" The acceleration equation is the second one on that page In 3d when you measure the area of a container your describing its volume.

Space is volume. Vacuum is a pressure term. You misread the other post in the "What is in Space" thread in which I detailed the ideal gas laws in Cosmology usage, with correlations to the stress energy tensor.

Ps the Higgs field also uses the scalar modelling formula (derivitive of) Pressure is force per volume. So yes it's the force exerted by pressure on galaxies. Curvature is an energy density pressure distribution relation curve. Gravity can only affect mass in order to have mass you need energy/mass density. So gravity can only affect particles as energy is a property of particles. When you think about the following statements. 1) mass is equivelent to energy (e=mc^2) 2) energy is a property of particles. 3) gravity only affects mass 4) space time is any metric coordinate system that includes time as a coordinate. The statement "space time curvature is a geometric coordinate descriptive of the influence gravity has on the particles that occupy the volume of space" becomes apparent. (PS, all the four forces are described in geometric interaction relations.) Hence the importance of differential geometry in physics. The term space itself is just the amount of volume.

Look at expansion as an ideal gas relationships. All particle and force interactions contribute to the energy density to pressure relations described by the ideal gas laws. Dark energy being w=-1. Negative vacuum. Vacuum is a pressure term. Matter doesn't exert a measurable pressure, neither does dark matter. However local gravity affects exert pressure via the stress energy tensor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Here is a basic article I wrote http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page two with the distance to FLRW metrics in 2d,3d,4d http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ I mentioned the stress energy tensor of the Einstein field equations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor Notice the pressure and energy density terms in the matrix. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf for the metric tensor portion above. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity) Virtual particles contribute in the same fashion. If you are at a state of thermal equilibrium and in a state that can be completely described as a vacuum the last formula on the wiki ideal gas law link can be used. Ie nothing but virtual particles as one example. See scalar modelling http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

We've provided articles. You provide an article that states density wave is wrong. Your turn Did you not understand the term Halo? Which lies outside the galactic plane. Have You even looked at the regions in the papers we posted. Or looked at the rotation curve metrics or virial theorem? Here lets make it even more obvious.... http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=39&cat=galaxies key word Halo, this includes halo stars.... http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~weiss/aa_533_a59.pdf http://www2.lowell.edu/workshops/expdisks2014/presentations/Davis_Poster.pdf http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/Chiappini-MilkyWay.pdf http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110/MilkyWay.pdf http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CDcQFjAKOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.cose.isu.edu%2F~hackmart%2Fmilkyway.pdf&rct=j&q=milky%20way%20pdf&ei=DY7uVJaQEabPsQTV1oCoBQ&usg=AFQjCNG2DpEcZ8Lk2HCxy1Dq1hMIAodtqQ&sig2=lfUKuHq68OqGPoXSsMzJng In the last link page 11 is full of stars that lie in the galactic halo. You should also note the density to luminosity relations. If this isn't enough to satisfy you prove us wrong With a Peer reviewed paper.

Actually, the way you described it is accurate. Space is volume filled with the energy contents of the universe. This includes virtual particles.