David Levy

Hi Mordred Thanks for the great articles. I couldn't find any approval for the idea that there are stars between the spiral arms. In the contrary, the evidences which are introduced in those articles gave me further confirmation to Newton laws for spiral galaxy. The explanation is as follow: In the articles it is stated that there are several theories for spiral galaxies. Please see: http://www2.lowell.edu/workshops/expdisks2014/presentations/Davis_Poster.pdf "Spiral structure is the most distinctive feature of disk galaxies and yet debate persists about which theory of spiral structure is the correct one." The density wave theory has two camps: "The density wave theory has been studied for several decades now and still has many sup- porters, divided broadly into two camps: those who contend that the spiral pattern is a long-lasting one created by standing waves (the modal theory) and others who regard the pattern as transient (compared to the lifetime of a galaxy), though perpetually recreated as new density wave patterns emerge (the swing amplification theory)." The density wave could be a perfect theory for Sturn ring, but not to spiral galaxy. There is a significant gap between the two structures. In Spiral disc there is a thick disc and thin disc. In Saturn disc there is only thin disc. "The density wave theory has had one outstanding success since its creation, not as applied to galaxies, but in the context of patterns observed in Saturn’s rings. In the limit of a very large central mass and a thin disk, the pitch angle of these density waves, as shown by Shu (1975), depends on the ratio of the disk mass density to the central mass." Some other theories: "Other theories have also been proposed, with one in particular, the Manifold theory, rejecting the density wave concept altogether, in favor of an explanation involving stars in chaotic highly eccentric orbits." However, the following article gives final approval for Newton theory as I have explained in this tread. Please see: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110/MilkyWay.pdf In pg. 16 there is a diagram of the Stellar Orbits. Disk stars (yellow) – all move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits. Stars in the bulge (red) - and Halo (green) move in fairly random orbits. In pg. 15 it is stated: "Most stars near the Sun have random velocities of a few tens of km/sec." The density wave theory can't offer any explanation for this evidence. However, this is fully aligned with my explanation. I have already divide the spiral galaxy to three sections. (Please see pg. 36 in this thread) "You have to understand correctly the structure of spiral galaxy. In each structure, there are different forces. So, the spiral galaxy is divided into three main sections. -spiral arms section -Center; The area between the supper massive black hole to the first Inwards ring of the spiral arms. (It is called Bulge) -Outwards – The aria from the far end of the spiral arms and outwards. (It is called Hallo)" The gravity force in the spiral arms is much higher than the gravity force in the bulge or in the Halo. I have already explained it in pg 1 of this thread and in my thread about the expected mass of the black hole (pg.7,12,18). http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87482-milky-way-galaxy-mass-vs-black-hole-mass/ Hence, in the spiral arm section – (Yellow) the gravity force of the spiral arm keeps the stars in the loop. Therefore, each star might have a random velocity, (pg. 15) but it will keep his position in the arm and continue with the same motion direction of the spiral arm. Therefore, the stars will not be ejected from the arm although they have random up and down velocities. However, in the central section – Bulge (Red) and in the outwards section - Hallo (green) of the galaxy, the gravity force is much less than in the spiral arms section. Therefore, the stars are moving in a fairly random orbits. Actually, that by itself proves that there are no stars outside the spiral arms. If there were some stars outside the spiral arms, those stars must lose the gravity force of the arm. Therefore, it is expected that they will have a fairly random orbits (as it is in the Bulge and in the hallo). This is one more confirmation for Newton law in spiral galaxy!

Thanks Yes, it is a special galaxy. This galaxy is called Sombrero Galaxy. And this is the only one under this category. Therefore, it is very unique. Please see the following infrared picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sombrero_Galaxy_in_infrared_light_(Hubble_Space_Telescope_and_Spitzer_Space_Telescope).jpg Based on its ratio between the mass ring and the center It looks similar (for me) to a ring galaxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoag%27s_object.jpg In any case, I have tried to get further information about the spiral arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy It is stated that the "galaxy's most striking feature is the dust lane that crosses in front of the bulge of the galaxy". But, unfortunately, there is no info about the spiral arms and there is no confirmation that there are stars between the arms. It is just stated that: " Additional observations are needed to confirm that the Sombrero galaxy's molecular gas is constrained to the ring." Therefore, I'm not sure that we can get to any real conclusion about the spiral arms…

Thanks StringJunky Who am I to decide if there is delineation or there isn't? I have only asked to get one article in which the science states that in spiral galxy X (as an example) there is no delineation between the arms. So, it is clear that there are stars between the spiral arms. Only one article! Thanks Mordred I will read it carefully and advice.

Hello StringJunky Thanks for the example. However, based on Wiki, and Nasa there is no confirmation for the assumption that there are stars between the spiral arms. It is stated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_342 "The dust of the Milky Way makes it difficult to determine the precise distance; modern estimates range from about 7 Mly[5] to about 11 Mly.[2]" By: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130718.html It is stated: "Even though IC 342's light is dimmed by intervening cosmic clouds, this deep telescopic image traces the galaxy's obscuring dust, blue star clusters, and glowing pink star forming regions along spiral arms that wind far from the galaxy's core. IC 342 may have undergone a recent burst of star formation activity and is close enough to have gravitationally influenced the evolution of the local group of galaxies and the Milky Way." So, Why are you using this example? Can you please advice if and where there is a confirmation for the assumption of stars between the arms? Hello Strange Thanks again for your great support. I do appreciate all your efforts, and I do not ignore any massage! I have got from you and other members full explanation about the theory. However, you have claimed that the assumption of having stars between spiral arms is confirmed by a real observation. Unfortunately, so far I couldn't find it in any article which all of you have pointed. It might be my mistake that I have missed it. There are millions over billions spiral galaxies. If there are stars between the spiral arms, we should see it in at least one galaxy. So please, would you kindly direct me to one (only one) article which confirms this assumption by real observation in one of the spiral galaxies.

Which observation? Is it M100 or the Saturn ring? Is there any real evidence for this observation? If so, please advice. However, based on Newton lows and my mathematical calculations, it is expected to get the following results: -All stars in spiral arms must drift outwards -There are no stable stars between the spiral arms. (If there is a star – than this star had been kicked out from the galaxy) I would mostly appreciate to get any REAL evidence which confirms or rejects those expectations.

Winding up problem; As I have already proved in my mathematical calculations, in order to keep the velocity curve, stars must drift inwards or outwards. Please see pg. 4. If the stars are drifting inwards the spiral arm, or even if they keep their distance from the center, than it should lead to winding problem. This is clear. However, if the stars are drifting outwards from the center than there is no winding problem! This proves that all the stars in spiral galaxy are drifting outwards! Actually this is one of the most important aspects for spiral galaxy. There is no spiral galaxy without one drifting direction! It isn't a wave. There is no posibility for drifting inwards and outwards. In spiral galaxy all the stars must drift outwards! Somehow, the science verified several aspects of spiral galaxy. Never the less, so far I couldn't find even one article about this important issue. (I'm aware about several theories, but not real verification). Even today, there is no clear indication if the Sun is drifting outwards from the center. Why? If you can find even one star (only one star out of the billions stars in spiral arm section) which drifts inwards, than it is a solid proof that I have a severe error in my understanding of spiral galaxy structure.(Please - no theory. Only real evidence!)

Now it's clear why there is an error in the current modeling.

That's great news. I always wonder why you didn't do it so far. It seems that you have a severe error in your modeling. I will explain: You have to understand correctly the structure of spiral galaxy. In each structure, there are different forces. So, the spiral galaxy is divided into three main sections. -spiral arms section -Center; The area between the supper massive black hole to the first Inwards ring of the spiral arms. -Outwards – The aria from the far end of the spiral arms and outwards. In each section, there are different forces and different equivalent host mass: So far I have mainly concentrated in the spiral arms. It should be quite simple to set the modeling of this section. However, the center should be much more difficult. I have spent hours in order to find the basic mechanism for this area. Even so, I need more data (especially on the bar) inorder to be sure that I do understand the complexity of this section. The outwards section should be the simplest one. However, so far I didn't make any calculation for this area.

No, it is not. Newton low is fully aliened with any available evidence for spiral galaxy. Please try to find one – only one real evidence - which contradicts my idea!

First let me highlight my appreciation for your knowledge and support! "The radius of the sun's orbit is about 2.5x1017 km, so the total mass of dark matter within that orbit is 6x1040 kg. This is the mass of 3x1010 (30 billion) stars like the sun! The entire galaxy only contains ~100 billion stars, so the dark matter does have a significant effect on the sun's orbit through the galaxy. For objects farther out near the edge of the galaxy, the dark matter is actually the main thing keeping them in their orbits. This is more or less how dark matter was discovered by astronomer Vera Rubin and others: the orbital speeds of galactic stars and gas clouds don't match our expectations from the visible matter". Wow! Now I can understand the source for the dark mass idea. As I have stated, Newton low gives full explanation for Spiral galaxy. Hence, there is no need for this dark mass However, it is quite amazing phenomenon. The science couldn't find a solution for the sun orbit velocity in the Milky Way galaxy. Therefore, it was concluded that there must be dark mass inorder to explain this rotation curve. Now, when I have offered a solution for this rotation curve – I need to explain also the idea of dark mass. This is an impossible mission for me! Yes, that is correct. Do you agree to reduce the dark matter to zero? Yes, I have a perfect explanation for everything we see. I can promise that if you are ready to ignore completely the current concepts and theories, you will find that there are simple explanations for everything we see and will see. Therefore, I have asked you to focus only on evidences. I have no ability to compete with the current theories. From time to time I read about puzzled scientists. They are confused with the last evidence which they have just discovered. However, they are puzzled because the last evidence doesn't fully align with the current theories. So, they try to find new theory to close the gap. Therefore, you must be a master in science inorder to understand the full set of theories and updates.

Thanks Strange So, do you agree that dark matter is everywhere? If the dark matter is like a salt, and there is a salt in every drop of the ocean, than there must be dark matter everywhere. Even in the solar system – and in the same ration (more or less) How come? Why do you claim that there isn't enough dark matter in the solar system? Based on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter "the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the Universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the Universe" So, the ratio between an ordinary matter to dark matter is at least 5 to one. Hence, in the solar system the dark matter mass should be at least five times the mass of the Sun. Even if it is only one to one; Please try to confirm Newton low in this condition… However, if the current theory contradicts Newton low, don't you think that you should reconsider this theory (or Newton low...)?

Newton lows perfectly fits to what we see. Yes, if you add dust and dark matter it won't fit. However, don't you think that dark matter is only a theory? If there is a dark matter it should be anywhere. Let me use an example of a salt in an ocean. The percentage of the salt in the ocean is the same even for one drop. Therefore, if there is a dark matter, it should also be applicable in our solar system! However, in this case, it's quite clear that Newton low shouldn't fit also for the solar system. Therefore, if Newton low works perfectly on a solar system without dark matter; it also should work perfectly on spiral galaxy without dark matter. Hence, would you kindly help me to distinguish between theories and real proves? So far most of the arguments for the assumption that there are mass between the spiral arms were based on theories. For example: -Density wave theory -Plasma -Dark matter -MOND -It takes a few million years for a star born in the spiral arm to drift out. With regards to real evidence, So far the most real evidence was M100. However, based on the article about M100 it is quite clear that this is not the case. Therefore, I would mostly appreciate your support in focusing on real evidence.

Sorry, this isn't an evidence for any existence of mass between the arms. This is only a theory for spiral galaxy shape which is already well known. You have claimed that we can see those stars. Never the less, so far we couldn't find any real evidence which confirms it. In the M100 galaxy, there is no any proof for this assumption. Based on Newton low there shouldn't be any mass between the arms. The explanation is quite simple - Let's assume that one star had been drifted out from the spiral arm and try to figure what should be the outcome: We all know that the gravity force is : " inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" Therefore, the nearby stars contribute significant portion of the equivalent gravity force which attracts this star in the galaxy. If a miserable star is drifted out from the spiral arm, (not inwards or outwards in the arm – but just out of the arm) its equivalent gravity force should be decreased. Hence, there will be no balance between its rotation energy to its new decreased equivalent gravity force. Therefore, it will be kicked out from the arm and eventually from the galaxy. Hence, Theoretically we might see some stars between the arms. But those stars are in transient mode. They had been kicked out from the galaxy. This proves that there are no stars in between the spiral arms! With regards to our solar system -It's better for us to keep our position in the spiral arm.

Thanks However, please be aware for the following: " The blue dots covering the entire image are stars that lie between us and M100." Therefore, I assume that by eliminating those blue dots, we should get a normal view of spiral galaxy. In any case, I couldn't find in this article a support for the idea that the stars are fairly evenly distributed throughout the galaxy.

As you claim that we can see matter between spiral arms – please prove it. So far I couldn't find an article which confirms this theory by real evidence.

Thanks Newton gives full explanation for spiral galaxy including the winding up problem. Saturn rings are not spiral system. Therefore, the Density wave theory is not applicable for spiral galaxy. It actually gives a solution for just one aspect of spiral galaxy – winding up problem. But it confuses us with all the other aspects. This none relevant theory can't replace Newton low! Why are we so sure that there is some kind of matter between the arms? What kind of real proof the science has to support this assumption? (Please don't use a theory as a proof). Based on Newton low, there shouldn't be any matter between the arms. This is the key element for spiral galaxy! I will explain it later on.

Thanks I will read it carefully. However, I have few questions with regards to the Saturn rings: Spiral arm: Do we see any form of spiral arms in Saturn rings? Velocity vs. distance from the center: What is the reference between the velocity of an object and its distance from Saturn. Is it behaved like a normal solar system, or like a spiral arm? Would you also direct me to an article which claims that there are stars outside the spiral arms in spiral galaxy?

Thanks again Let me start from the end of your reply. No, my solution perfectly fits the actual observation! No. Sorry that I was not clear in my message. I have just used an example of a rigid spiral galaxy in order to prove that a real spiral galaxy isn't rigid! And yes, based on this example I have found that theoretically – the orbital speeds of stars in rigid spiral galaxies should increase directly with distance form the center of the galaxy. However, this is not the case in the real life. Yes, that is fully correct. Therefore, Spiral galaxy isn't a rigid one. The meaning is that stars must move inwards or outwards. I have also made a mathematical calculation in order to find the real distance that stars must move in spiral arm in order to meet the real life measurements. Hence, my solution proves that: -Spiral galaxy isn't rigid -Stars must move outwards or inwards in order to meet the measurements. Therefore, my solution perfectly fits the real life measurements! Yes, I fully agree with this explanation. It is 100% correct. The winding up problem is a key element in my explanation. However, at this stage I didn't explain why it is so important. I will explain it later on. Please explain how can we detect them. Would you kindly direct me to an article which claims that there are stars outside the spiral arms? If there are stars outside the spiral arm, than are they also in spiral shape? If so, how many spiral arms there are in spiral galaxy? If those outside stars are not in spiral shape - in what shape they are? How do we know that? Why there is higher density in spiral arm? What kind of force could create this kind of density? Is it based on Newton gravity low or some dark power? It is estimated that the age of the sun is a few billion years - So, why it is still in a spiral arm? How could it be that out of the 400 billions stars in the galaxy, we can't find even one bright star between the arms?

How do you know that? Do we have any real proof? Out of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy – would you kindly show me just one that moves in and out? What about the sun? Does it also move in and out? Thanks Janus Do appreciate your reply. Somehow the science does not consider the most critical issue - the spiral arm. Why the science does not even think about the contribution of the spiral arm to the velocity and the gravity? Please explain. Why do you claim that the stars don't stay in the spiral arm? Do you mean that there are stars outside the spiral arms? How do we know that? How do we also know that the orbits carry them in and out? If there is traffic jams, than the outcome should be severe collisions. We know it in our motor highway. If stars are moving in and out in the arm, than some of them should collide with each other. Do we see significant stars collisions in spiral arms? So, the science has no idea for this problem. I have offered a valid solution for this issue.

Thanks! I will explain it. Spiral Galaxy – Orbital speed of star (in spiral arm) vs. its distance from the center By wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve "If disc galaxies have mass distributions similar to the observed distributions of stars and gas then, the orbital speed would always decline at increasing distances in the same way as do other systems with most of their mass in the centre, such as the Solar System or the moons of Jupiter". This is incorrect! As I have already proved spiral galaxy isn't solar system. In a solar system, most of the mass is in the center, while in spiral galaxy there are significant portion of mass outside the center. In order to evaluate the orbital speed vs. distance, let's assume that all the stars in spiral arms keep their position and do not drift them inwards or outwards. Therefore, it is like a rigid spiral disc. In this case, it is expected that all points of mass should complete one cycle at the same time. The circumference of a circle for is Where: C is circumference, r is Radius and π is a dimensionless constant approximately equal to 3.14159. Let's use the following example: For first star - R1 = 10,000 ly C = 2 x 3.14 x 10,000 = 62,800 ly For second star – R2 = 20,000 ly C = 2 x 3.14 x 20,000 = 125,600 ly Both stars complete one cycle in the same time (rigid spiral disc). The circumference of second star is double than the first one, therefore, its orbital speed must be doubled with regards to the first one. Hence, the orbital speed must increase at increasing distance, assuming that the stars keep their position in the spiral arms. Rotation Curve problem in spiral galaxy By wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve "galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated mass associated with the observed luminous material. When mass profiles of galaxies are calculated from the luminosity profiles and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks, then they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and the law of gravity." "The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the magnitude of the orbital velocities (i.e., the speeds) of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's centre, typically rendered graphically as a plot." Let's see the following diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M33_rotation_curve_HI.gif R1 = 10,000 ly the observation velocity is 90 km/s. R2 = 20,000 ly the observation velocity is 105 km/s. Based on our calculations, in a rigid spiral disc the orbital velocity must increase at increasing distance. At a double distance, the orbital speed must be doubled. So, if R1 = 10,000 Ly and observation orbital velocity is 90 km/s, than for R2 = 20,000 Ly the expected speed must be 90 x 2 = 180 km/s. However, this isn't the case. We need to explain why the speed is only 105 km/s while based on our expectation from rigid spiral disc it should be 180 km/s. The answer is quite simple - Spiral galaxy disc isn't rigid disc. We must give some freedom to the stars to drift inwards or outwards in the arm. If we move a star outwards in the arm it has two vectors. One vector is vertically to the center – let's call it outwards vector The other vector is horizontally to the center – let's call it backwards vector. Let's make the mathematical calculation: The backwards vector should decrease the speed from 180 km/s (expected speed) to 105 km/s (observed speed). So we need to decrease the speed by 75 km/s. This is achievable by decreasing the circumference of a circle which the star will have to go in that "same period of time –T. The ratio between 75 to 180 is 0.41666. So if we will decrease the distance in the circumference of a circle from 125,600 ly by: 125,600 x 0.41666 = 52,332 ly. We will achieve the 105 km/s as observed. Hence, in the same period of time – T, the star should move in total: 125,600 – 52,332 = 73,268 ly (instead of 125,600 ly). So, the star will start at R=10,000 Ly, set a complete movement of 73,268 Ly and get to the point where R = 20,000 at the same time -T. By doing this movement the star speed at R=20,000 will be exactly 105 km/s as observed. Technically, we can make a calculation for a star which is drifting inwards. In this case, the star will drift inwards from 20,000 Ly to 10,000 Ly in the same time - T. If we move a star inwards in the arm it has two vectors. One vector is vertically to the center – let's call it inwards vector The other vector is horizontally to the center – let's call it forwards vector. The star will have to increase the circumference distance inorder to meet the observation speed. However, the mathematical calculation proves that spiral galaxy isn't a rigid disc. The stars must drift outwards or inwards in the arm while the whole arm rotates around the center of the galaxy.

Thanks Well, there are about 400 billion stars in a Milky Way galaxy. We need to map them all and verify the correct gravity force. This is quite difficult for me as I don't have the full map, the mass of each star, it's velocity, its direction and the distance to each other star. I assume that NASA could do it better than me. However, as usual, we can set a simple model which can give us an indication for the gravity force. I have already done it in page 27. In this model I have proved that a star in the inwards side of the arm has less gravity force than the one which is located outwards from its position. Theoretically, I can use more complex module with few hundreds of stars. But the results should be the same.

The calculation should be quite simple – The equivalent gravity force vector on any star in spiral arm should be as follow: F(equivalent) = F (center) + F(Arm)+ F(all other) While - F(center) is the equivalent gravity force of all the mass in the center including the black hole F(arm) is the equivalent gravity force of all the stars in that arm. Please be aware that if a star is located somewhere in the arm, than all stars which are located inwards from its location should contribute a positive gravity force, while the stars in the outwards side should contribute negative gravity force. Therefore, the equivalent force of F(arm) is as follow: F(arm) = F(Arm Inwards) - F(Arm outwards) Please also be aware that due to a distance, only the nearby stars will have a significant effect on the gravity force. F(all other) is the equivalent gravity force of all the stars in the other arms. This force is also quite neglected due to a distance. Hence: F (equivalent) = F(center) + F(Arm Inwards) - F(Arm outwards)+ F(all other) So, let's set a brief calculation for the equivalent gravity force vector: If star A is located at the most outwards side of the spiral arm, (let's assume that it is located at about 45,000 light years from the center) than its equivalent gravity force vector is as follow: Fa (equivalent) = Fa(center) + Fa(Arm Inwards) – Fa(Arm outwards)+ Fa(all other) However, as there are no stars outwards from its location, therefore: Fa(Arm outwards) = 0 If star B is located 1,000 light years inwards from star A in the arm (44,000 light years from the center), than its equivalent gravity force vector is as follow: Fb (equivalent) = Fb(black hole) + Fb(other mass in the center) + Fb(Arm Inwards) – Fb(Arm outwards)+ Fb(all other) In this case Fb(Arm outwards) contributes a real negative value. So let's calculate: The contribution of gravity force by center on each star is almost the same due to this high distance. Therefore we can assume that: Fa(center) = Fb(Center) In the same token, the contribution of F(all other) on each star should be similar, therefore, we can also assume that: Fa(all other) = Fb(all other). Hence, Fa(equivalent) is greater than Fb(equivalent). This brief calculation proves that the gravity force increases as the star is located further away from the center.

a

As I have stated, we just wasting our time. Thanks.

That is quite easy; Let's make a brief calculation for a star which is located in the same arm as the sun, but further away from the center. Let's call is S100. It will have same mass as the Sun. In this case, the total equivalent gravity force vectors from the center and from (m) are quite similar. Therefore, the real difference will be based on (n) [math]\vec{f_n} =\vec{f_x}+\vec{f_y} [/math]. While – (x) - Representing all the stars in the inwards side of the arm (with relative to the star location in the arm). (y) - Representing all the stars in the outwards side of the arm (with relative to the star location in the arm). However, those vectors have opposite polarities. Therefore, (y) is a negative force vector with regards to (x). So, if S100 is located further away from the center; There will be fewer stars which are located further away from its location to the end of the spiral arm (with relative to the sun). Therefore, the contribution of the (y) vectors will be lower than the one for the Sun. In the same token, the (x) vector will be stronger, as there will be more stars which are located in the inwards side from its location to the center of the spiral arm (with relative to the sun). Hence, the equivalent gravity force vector on S100 will be stronger than the gravity force on the Sun.