Galactic structure

[smooth]

"But that leads to a question — are we sure that gravitons wouldn't be emitted at the event horizon?"

Indeed, and would someone be wrong in assuming that the event horizon signifies the edge of the black hole? Or is it just the central point of a greater structure in which all the stars and planets fit into (that structure)?

 

For instance, we do not observe any bodies spherically orbiting our sun, (within the inner solar system) rather the bodies orbit upon the plane. And one would be rightly entitled to think that if any bodies did occupy a spherical orbit, that orbit would need to be close to the sun (ie the spherical orbit of a satellite orbiting Jupiter, say, would be closer to Jupiter than its rings which are further out and orbit upon the plane).

 

However we do know of the Oort cloud, which seems to be a mass of objects orbiting our solar system in a spherical formation, indicating that there is a boundary around our solar system that acts as a body in itself, emitting its own gravitational force. And if this is correct it solves the Dark Matter dilemma, dark matter been comparable in this situation to, someone identifying a proton but been unaware that it exists within a nucleus, and then discovering a quantity of unidentifiable mass around that proton, which turns out to be none other than the strong nuclear force.

 

I have other evidence to back up this claim, which I will share with you in good time.

 

 

Sorry, that should be - possibly solving not only the Dark Matter dillema, but the Horizon problem, as well as maybe Dark Energy also.

[smooth]

...And so as my theory goes, you would only observe accretion disks around BHs (black holes) that formed after the creation of the galaxy etc that it exists within. As the star(s) had collapsed within an already formed structure, the surrounding bodies would not exist within the structure of that star (more likely that the bodies exist within the structure of the central black hole of that particular galaxy), and hence the gravitational attraction between the bodies is free from the ’balancing effect’ of the structure I refer to (in this context it is probably best viewed as a balancing of the inertia of a body with the gravitational influence of another).

 

 

To explain this further I would like to refer to the stars spherically orbiting the central BH of a galaxy. For this scenario I am going to view them as like the atmosphere of the BH, the only real difference between the earths own atmosphere, been the increase in mass of both the BH compared to the earth, and the stars compared to the particles of air.

 

Despite the gravitational attraction of the earth, the atmosphere does not collapse inward, primarily because of the structure of the earths crust, which is comparable to how the structure of the nucleus prevents a star from collapsing. Now if I were to take a measurement of pressure within the earths orbit, that reading would be dependent upon all the particles of air in the entire atmosphere.

 

If I now also apply this to the stars spherically orbiting the BH, rather than record a pressure as it were, I would record a kind of combined gravitational exertion. And so returning to the case of accretion disks, if there were a number of stars spherically orbiting a BH, and they existed within a structure that created a combined gravitational exertion, I predict that it is this exertion that ’seals’ off the BH preventing it from been able to draw in any of the bodies, which if they were in orbit by themselves would be drawn in through lack of inertia.

 

 

I’ve got a feeling the explanation of this particular part of my theory hasn’t gone too well, and hence I would appreciate maybe a little feedback to help.

 

 

[Klaynos]

Not a theory.

 

Supermassive black holes need to discussed entirely differently from stella mass ones. It's believed the formation is rather different.

 

Cylindrically (well spiral) orbit for our galaxy isn't it?

 

There are lots more differences, the biggest of course being teh mean density, making the mechanics rather different.

 

The reason that atmospheres don't 'callapse' inwards and why stars do not do so is completely different, there is MASSIVE amounts of radiation pressure in stars, that you just don't get in planets.

 

You appear to be discussing gravitational screening which requires negative gravity. Which don't exist. Orbits stop things falling into black holes. In the same way we don't fall into the sun.

 

Not a theory.

[smooth]

The reason that atmospheres don't 'callapse' inwards and why stars do not do so is completely different, there is MASSIVE amounts of radiation pressure in stars, that you just don't get in planets.

 

Of course, I was merely trying to put an image in your head.

 

You appear to be discussing gravitational screening which requires negative gravity. Which don't exist. Orbits stop things falling into black holes. In the same way we don't fall into the sun.

As you have said to me previously, I don’t know why I am even bothering replying to you, especially considering you do not comprehend anything I am stating.

 

 

To state my prediction in an even more simplified statement,

 

If there is a universal structure whereby matter is arranged much like we observe with Saturn and its rings (ie a central sphere surrounded by a two dimensional plane), and if that plane is then surrounded by another sphere/boundary (ie as the Oort Cloud indicates our solar system is, or Gravitational Lensing suggests galaxies are), then is Dark Matter not a measure of this structure? Which is neglected when measuring individual stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

 

And if you still do not comprehend a structure, please do not even bother replying to me, because as far as I am concerned I have given you an explanation to something your view cannot explain.

 

 

[swansont]

I split this from the gravitons thread, since it is OT for that. Depending on how this goes, it may end up in speculations.

 

smooth, please lose the attitude. It is a barrier to constructive discourse.

[Klaynos]

It's only some galaxies isn't it?

 

So you're saying that everything is in the form of:

 

Sphere - 2D disk - Sphere - 2D disk --- etc....

 

But we know the centre of our own galaxy isn't really a sphere, it's a long way off one, and the 2D disk is rather large...

 

Would we not have noticed the sphere outside our galaxy?

 

What happens when the grown sphere - disk structures over lap?

 

What about in the case of MOST solar systems which are binary stars?

 

And it's still not a theory.

 

And I ask questions to try and get to the fundamental base of what you're trying to say, and to try and make you think through your ideas how a scientist would.

 

(Thanks for splitting it swansont)