Spiral Galaxy –How it had been formed?

[ACG52]

Hi D M & ACG52

As you don't agree with the following statement: "Assuming that the moon will slow down – It's quite clear that the gravity will force it to come closer and eventually it will collide with Earth."

Let's see the following info By Wiki: "The Moon completes its orbit around the Earth in approximately 27.5 days (a sidereal month)….With a mean orbital velocity of 1,023 m/s."

Hence, assuming that the orbital velocity decreases suddenly to 100 m/s, what would be the outcome based on your deep knoladge??? Do you need further help???

When an orbiting body loses speed, it moves outward, not inward. If the moon's orbital velocity suddenly decreased to 10 % of it's current, it would move away from the earth.

 

You know nothing about orbital mechanics or physics. Stop pretending you do.

[D H]

When an orbiting body loses speed, it moves outward, not inward. If the moon's orbital velocity suddenly decreased to 10 % of it's current, it would move away from the earth.

That's not right, ACG. Reducing the Moon's velocity by a factor of 10 would put the Moon in a highly elliptical orbit with the apogee at the Moon's current orbital radius and perigee well inside the Earth. Perigee inside the Earth means it would collide with the Earth.

 

However, this 90% reduction represents a huge change in velocity, and since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, it is an even larger percentage reduction in kinetic energy. David Levy cherry-picked an extreme example as if it somehow validates his claim of a "very critical balance between the gravity force and the rotation [sic] velocity."

 

He also claimed that "assuming that the moon will slow down It's quite clear that the gravity will force it to come closer and eventually it will collide with Earth." That's false in general. It's true for very large change, but he did not quantify his statement. Since it's false for anything but a very large change (more than an 84% reduction), his claim is false.

[ACG52]

 

 

However, this 90% reduction represents a huge change in velocity, and since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, it is an even larger percentage reduction in kinetic energy.

Yes I know, but in line with Levy's example I'm assuming that magic happens, and conservation of energy and angular momentum is ignored.

 

The point is, objects in a tighter orbit move faster than objects in a looser orbit.

[David Levy]

That's not right, ACG. Reducing the Moon's velocity by a factor of 10 would put the Moon in a highly elliptical orbit with the apogee at the Moon's current orbital radius and perigee well inside the Earth. Perigee inside the Earth means it would collide with the Earth.

 

Thanks D M

At least we agree on something...

 

However, this 90% reduction represents a huge change in velocity, and since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, it is an even larger percentage reduction in kinetic energy. David Levy cherry-picked an extreme example as if it somehow validates his claim of a "very critical balance between the gravity force and the rotation [sic] velocity."

 

You have missed the point.

 

In the angular momentum Theory, the main Idea is that the object might increase dramatically its orbital velocity. In this example I have proved that by dramatically increasing or decreasing an orbital velocity it will surly lose its orbital track. Therefore, the idea that the angular momentum could increase dramatically the orbital velocity of the object while keeping its orbital track is absolutely false.

 

 

 

 

He also claimed that "assuming that the moon will slow down It's quite clear that the gravity will force it to come closer and eventually it will collide with Earth." That's false in general. It's true for very large change, but he did not quantify his statement. Since it's false for anything but a very large change (more than an 84% reduction), his claim is false.

 

 

As I have stated, you have missed the point...

When an orbiting body loses speed, it moves outward, not inward. If the moon's orbital velocity suddenly decreased to 10 % of it's current, it would move away from the earth.

 

You know nothing about orbital mechanics or physics. Stop pretending you do.

 

Shame on you!!!

I thought that you are an expert. Now I have found that your knowledge is less than basic!!!

You have made a severe mistake. But your following reply is even worst.

 

 

Yes I know, but in line with Levy's example I'm assuming that magic happens, and conservation of energy and angular momentum is ignored.

 

The point is, objects in a tighter orbit move faster than objects in a looser orbit.

 

Why can't you take responsibly on your mistakes???

Shame on you!

[J.C.MacSwell]

Yes I know, but in line with Levy's example I'm assuming that magic happens, and conservation of energy and angular momentum is ignored.

 

The point is, objects in a tighter orbit move faster than objects in a looser orbit.

Without the magic, if due to some collision or drag an object slows down it would tend to fall to a lower orbit, and in doing so accelerate to a greater than original speed.

[D H]

You have missed the point.

 

In the angular momentum Theory, the main Idea is that the object might increase dramatically its orbital velocity. In this example I have proved that by dramatically increasing or decreasing an orbital velocity it will surly lose its orbital track. Therefore, the idea that the angular momentum could increase dramatically the orbital velocity of the object while keeping its orbital track is absolutely false.

What is this "angular momentum Theory" about which you are writing? I haven't the foggiest idea what you are going on about here. Please cite a reference of some sort: A web page, an article, a book, something.

[D H]

David,

 

After re-reading what you've written, it appears that this "angular momentum Theory" you dislike so much is the law of conservation of angular momentum.

 

Please tell me that 'm mistaken.

[David Levy]

David,

 

After re-reading what you've written, it appears that this "angular momentum Theory" you dislike so much is the law of conservation of angular momentum.

 

Please tell me that 'm mistaken.

 

Yes, the issue is the law of conservation of angular momentum. But, I do not dislike it. I just claim that this angular momentum can't set the orbital velocity which is needed for the spiral galaxy. The science must look for other alternative theory for the creation of the spiral galaxy!!!

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

prophet12

 

you have already been warned twice about hijacking others threads with your own speculations.

 

 

othermembers

 

let's keep to David's idea - and refuting/arguing/proving it using accepted mainstream ideas and observational evidence.

 

!

Moderator Note

I have locked this topic whilst I sort out a post that has erroneous attributions - and weed out a hijack. will open again shortly

!

Moderator Note

 

OK normal service has been resumed - with a bit of luck. I have split off (to a hijack thread in the trash) a message by prophet12 and the single response to that message by David Levy.

 

David - Please learn to use the quote function properly; you must be careful not to misattribute quotes.

 

[D H]

David,

 

You need to be much more specific about your complaint. I don't know what it is you are going on about.

 

Let me try a second guess: Do you think the stars are spiraling in toward the center of the galaxy along the spiral arms?

 

If that's what your objection to spiral galaxies is, you're right. That is not what is happening. We are currently about 27,000 light years from the center of the galaxy. That was also more or less the distance to the galactic core when the Sun formed, about 4.6 billion years ago. Our solar system has orbited the galaxy about 18 times since it formed, and it has done so without spiraling in toward the galactic core.

[David Levy]

Hello D M

Thanks for the question!

 

David,

Let me try a second guess: Do you think the stars are spiraling in toward the center of the galaxy along the spiral arms?

 

No. The star in any disc system must drift outwards from the Center. I can prove it!!! We know that the moon is drifting away from the Earth. Mars in the past had a liqued water, therefore, it was surly closer to the sun. The Earth is also drifting away from the sun.

 

You need to be much more specific about your complaint. I don't know what it is you are going on about.

Just think about the following statement:

" The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."

Why the bar contains large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy??? How come??? Where this huge molecular hydrogen come from???

Don't you think that it might be an indication for an Atom Creation activity in the spiral galaxy core???

Don't you think that there is a possibility that at least one atom had been created by the huge power of the rotational suppermassive black hole???

Therefore, The Theory is as follow:

 

A. Creation of a new Hydrogen Atom - a new mass is created around the galactic nucleus of spiral galaxy. Nucleus serves as the accelerating (or generator) that creates new material. In the near distance to the nucleus, there are probably tremendous forces and electric fields with huge energy. This creates thin layers of Hydrogen atoms. Those atoms are moving at nearly the speed of light.

B. Creation of wide range of Atoms and molecular: at this high speed there is a chance for collision between those new born Hydrogen Atoms. Also, due to the high pressure, temperature and electric/magnetic fields a nuclear fusion activity will set heavier atoms. (Eg, nuclear fusion between two atoms of hydrogen will generate helium). In this way all the atoms which are known have been created. Due to the high electric field, there is a wide range of intermolecular links. Therefore, all the following molecules are formed: water, carbon dioxide, silicates, and more. Over time, those atoms and moleculars crystallize into blocks and gradually migrate outwards from the bar shape.

C. Star Birth – by wiki " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."

Hence, Those blocks crystallize and form hot mass balls. Each ball absorbs additional mass and increases its size- similar to a snowball. As long as the ball is in the creation mass zone, it will get more mass and increase its size. Gradually, a hot new star will appear. If it's a high-mass star then it will keep all the light gases (due to gravity) and become a giant gas star. If the mass is significantly larger there is a chance for a nuclear burning activity than it might become a sun star. But when it is relatively small, than the gases might emitted into space and therefore, it becomes a rocky planet like Earth and Mars.

D. New star locked by interior side of spiral arm –The newborn star migrates outwards from the galactic nucleus. The Electric fields and forces in the nucleus of the galaxy form the shape of the famous BAR which is visible in most of the spiral galaxy. The star on the edge of the BAR continues with its outwards migration and starts penetrating to the gravitational forces of the interior side of the spiral arms. Therefore, It reduces its velocity and continue to rotate till it finely locked by the gravitational power of one of the spiral arm. It's similar to roulette ball bouncing between the cells numbers until it lost the speed and finally set in one of the cells.

E. Spiral arm - Spiral arm acts as a chain of star which is connected to each other by the gravitational power. This maintains the flat & high velocity. In fact, the galactic nucleus of a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of up to billions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and creates a circular motion for all the stars which are relatively close to it. Thus, rotation of a star near the galactic nucleus causes a higher speed to another star which is a little farther from the nucleus. It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.
The balls in this example are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power.
Note that all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. All in one direction. Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus.

F. A brief calculation- Most of the 400 Billion stars are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70 Billion stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 70,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are about 1 billion stars in a 1000 x 1000 light year. Hence, 1,000 stars per 1 x 1 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!!

G. New Spiral Galaxy - Each spiral galaxy is generated from some sort of a seed (which might be a magnator or quasar).

H. Universe expending -Each new spiral galaxy migrates away from the Mother' spiral galaxy. Therefore, at the far end of the universe, the galaxies are moving away at ultra high speed. in the same token, the galaxies are moving in all directions. That gives an answer why the galaxies at the far end of the universe are moving faster away, while the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving to each other. A solid prove for that is the "The hydrogen "bridge" between Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy".

Hence, Andromeda is the mother spiral galaxy (it has over 1000 Billion stars) of Triangulum spiral galaxy (It has only 40 Billion stars)!!!

[D H]

That's a number of non sequiturs and a huge boatload of chipped and fractured ceramics, David.

The star in any disc system must drift outwards from the Center. I can prove it!!! We know that the moon is drifting away from the Earth. Mars in the past had a liqued water, therefore, it was surly closer to the sun. The Earth is also drifting away from the sun.

 

That's three non sequiturs. They do not prove your conjecture.

The Moon is receding from the Earth due to tidal interactions. You cannot use the Moon's recession as your proof because the galactic gravity gradient across the span of the entire solar system is exceedingly small. Besides, what tidal interactions do you propose that would cause this very tiny recession?

Mars had liquid water in the past because it had not yet lost its atmosphere and because it was still warm from its formation. The loss of the atmosphere was very significant. Negligible atmosphere = negligible greenhouse effect. The presence of liquid water on Mars does not prove that it was closer to the Sun, and even if it was, it doesn't prove that stars recede from the galactic center.

The Earth is drifting from the Sun, and by an anomalously large amount. The predicted rate based on all known phenomenon yield a recession rate of 1.5 cm/year. The observed rate is 15 cm/year. This is an interesting open issue. The most likely explanation is that astronomers are doing something wrong in their measurements, their data analyses, or both. This is the explanation astronomers themselves invoke. The problem is that nobody can see what's being done wrong.

The known phenomenon don't apply to stars orbiting a galaxy. The unknown explanation doesn't either for the simple fact that it's unknown.

Why the bar contains large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy??? How come??? Where this huge molecular hydrogen come from???

 

Gas flowing inward toward the galactic center. Google and Google scholar are your friends. You should them it before making wild conjectures.

Don't you think that it might be an indication for an Atom Creation activity in the spiral galaxy core???

No. This is nonsense.

Don't you think that there is a possibility that at least one atom had been created by the huge power of the rotational suppermassive black hole???

No. This is even more nonsense.

[David Levy]

Hello D M

 

The Earth is drifting from the Sun, and by an anomalously large amount. The predicted rate based on all known phenomenon yield a recession rate of 1.5 cm/year. The observed rate is 15 cm/year. This is an interesting open issue. The most likely explanation is that astronomers are doing something wrong in their measurements, their data analyses, or both. This is the explanation astronomers themselves invoke. The problem is that nobody can see what's being done wrong.

That's great news!!!

I was expecting that the Earth is drifting away from the Sun. Never the less, at the time that I have set my theory, most of the science claimed that the Earth is drifting inwards. I had a severe argument with some people about this issue. If I remember correctly, one of them was AGC52…

Therefore, I will mostly appreciate your help by giving me the Web address for this measurement.

 

 

Gas flowing inward toward the galactic center. Google and Google scholar are your friends. You should them it before making wild conjectures.

 

 

This is a pure fantasy story!!!

Please read again the following statement by Wiki: " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."

Now let's think about this critical message. If that ring contains a large fraction of the Hydrogen present in the galaxy, then we must assume that galactic Center is the place where it had been created!!!

The chance that it had been collected from outside the center is almost zero. (As the Hydrogen fraction in whole galaxy outside this ring is quite low) Therefore, it must come from inside of the ring. From this aria it drifts outwards.

Therefore, we can also understand how the The hydrogen "bridge" between Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy" had been set!!!

[EdEarl]

David, tyvm for learning to quote. There's more.

[D H]

Hello D M

This is getting a bit obnoxious. My user name is D H, not D M.

 

 

That's great news!!!

I destroyed your argument and your response is "great news"? I don't get it.

 

 

This is a pure fantasy story!!!

No, it's the other way around. It's your "theory" that is pure fantasy. That it's inflow, not outflow: That is an observed phenomenon. Your "theory" is falsified by these observations.

[David Levy]

This is getting a bit obnoxious. My user name is D H, not D M.

Sorry

 

 

I destroyed your argument and your response is "great news"? I don't get it.

Your message is the best supporting data for my theory!!!

 

 

No, it's the other way around. It's your "theory" that is pure fantasy. That it's inflow, not outflow: That is an observed phenomenon. Your "theory" is falsified by these observations.

So let's read your message: "The Earth is drifting from the Sun, and by an anomalously large amount. The predicted rate based on all known phenomenon yield a recession rate of 1.5 cm/year."

The outcome is that 4.5 Billion years ago the Earth was closer to the sun.

The Earth is one of the Sun' planets.

Unfortunately, there is no measured data about the drifting of the other planets.

Hence, why do you claim that all the other planets must drift inwards while the Earth is drifting outwards???

Why do you think that the other planets work on a different mechanism from Earth???

[D H]

Your message is the best supporting data for my theory!!!

No, it isn't. It contradicts your theory. The Moon is receding from the Earth primarily because of tidal interactions. The Earth is receding from the Sun primarily because the Sun is losing mass. Neither of those apply to stars orbiting the galaxy. The gravity gradient of galactic gravitation across the span of the entire solar system is negligibly small. Across the diameter of a star? It essential doesn't exist. With respect to mass, the exact opposite applies. The galaxy is gaining mass, particularly so the part near the galactic center. The stars should be moving inwards, not outwards, but at an imperceptibly small rate.

 

 

So let's read your message: "The Earth is drifting from the Sun, and by an anomalously large amount. The predicted rate based on all known phenomenon yield a recession rate of 1.5 cm/year."

The outcome is that 4.5 Billion years ago the Earth was closer to the sun.

 

So what? This does not pertain to stars orbiting a galaxy. You appear to be assuming that because the Moon is receding from the Earth and the planets are receding from the Sun that this is a law of nature. It isn't. This recession of the Moon and the planets is due to circumstances particular to the Moon and to the planets. Those circumstances are not universally true. You are making a hasty generalization by assuming that everything must be receding based on the fact that the Moon and Earth are doing so.

[David Levy]

No, it isn't. It contradicts your theory. The Moon is receding from the Earth primarily because of tidal interactions. The Earth is receding from the Sun primarily because the Sun is losing mass. Neither of those apply to stars orbiting the galaxy.

 

Spiral galaxy by definition is a disc system. The receding of the moon and the Earth is valuable information for our understanding of disc system activity.

 

 

 

The galaxy is gaining mass, particularly so the part near the galactic center. The stars should be moving inwards, not outwards, but at an imperceptibly small rate.

Why do you think so??? This is a pure imagination. Do you have any prove for this statement??? Why a galaxy which is spinning at high velocity and move in space at ultra speed could gain any mass from space??? There are many examples that spiral galaxies are losing stars & mass. Never the less, There isn't even one prove that a spiral galaxy could collect mass from space.

 

This does not pertain to stars orbiting a galaxy. You appear to be assuming that because the Moon is receding from the Earth and the planets are receding from the Sun that this is a law of nature. It isn't. This recession of the Moon and the planets is due to circumstances particular to the Moon and to the planets. Those circumstances are not universally true. You are making a hasty generalization by assuming that everything must be receding based on the fact that the Moon and Earth are doing so.

Yes it is. I was expecting that in any disc system the stars should move outwards. So far, the science had found a data for only two disc objects in the universe. Noon & Earth. The science couldn't find even one measurement which might contradict my expectation. The main problem is that the science do not agree nor except the results of their measurements. They try to verify if there is any mistake. As you have stated: " This is an interesting open issue. The most likely explanation is that astronomers are doing something wrong in their measurements, their data analyses, or both. This is the explanation astronomers themselves invoke. The problem is that nobody can see what's being done wrong."

Why the science can't agree or accept those results? Why they reject the Idea that stars in a disc system are moving outwards???

Based on logical point – Out of billion over billion stars in a disc system, the science could only find that two stars are moving outwards. As there is no even one evidence which contradicts this data, the science must assume that the stars in a disc system are moving outwards!!!

Edited July 6, 2013 by David Levy

[ACG52]

 

 

Out of billion over billion stars in a disc system, the science could only find that two stars are moving outwards.

I don't now where you get your ridiculous statements, but this one alone shows that your idea has no observational support.

[David Levy]

I don't now where you get your ridiculous statements, but this one alone shows that your idea has no observational support.

What do you realy know???

As you have already showed us your sever lack of knowledge, it's better for you to keep your "wisdom" and be silence.

Never the less, if you insist…Would you kindly find even one example which contradicts this statement….

Edited July 6, 2013 by David Levy

[ACG52]

You claim two instances out of billions and this is supposed to support your idea?

 

When you get back from your ban please provide an actual citation for these 'two out of billions'.