October 14th, 2009, 05:07 PM
Ok, so I know there are exceptions, but you can see a pattern: Galixies tend to be more like this:
Why do they tend to be 2D, you know, like on a plane, why aren't they 3D, like a sphere, where all the matter is attracted from all directions to the center of the massive black hole in the middle?
Is it because of Dark Matter?
Because they rotate/spin.
never mind, i kind of like found the answer somewhere else.
i ment why galaxies are flat.
but thx anyways
Out of curiosity, what was the answer you found? It might be nice to share here in case others want to know, also. :wink:
Spiral galaxies are similar to hurricanes in structure.
Almost everybody think that there is a black hole in the center of every spiral galaxy, but there are no observational proofs.
There is a stable nuclear fusion reactor in the center of every spiral galaxy, but nobody can understand it.
In fact, we need powers to rotate spiral galaxies, what kind of powers do you think it is suitable to move a spiral galaxy?
Coservation of momenentum
Please tell me you are joking. This was one of the biggest confirmations we received from Hubble.Originally Posted by clever1
This is the answer I found to the question: Why are galaxies flat?
The best explanation is that galaxies formed from a spinning cloud (well, actually, probably many spinning clouds, but all with about the same spin). As the cloud contracted, it started spin faster, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum. This spin flattened out the shape of the galaxy due to centripedal force. The same thing happens to stars. As they contract, their spin increases, and gas and dust from their formation makes a disk around the star. From this disk, planets are formed. That is why the solar system displays this feature as well.
Very good. Thanks for coming back and sharing.
Please tell me you are joking. This was one of the biggest confirmations we received from Hubble.
At present, black holes can only be found in newspapers, Journals and books.
A lot of scientists reject ideas of black holes.
Physics is an experimental science, so I think that we can wait for a while to accept black holes.
Spin clouds, a good idea, but where do these spins of spin clouds come from? Why do these spin clouds spin forever?
Again... No.Please tell me you are joking. This was one of the biggest confirmations we received from Hubble.
At present, black holes can only be found in newspapers, Journals and books.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/blackholes.html
.
Spin clouds, a good idea, but where do these spins of spin clouds come from?
[/quote]Any large cloud of randomly moving particles will bound to have some net angular momentum.Conservation of angular momentum.Why do these spin clouds spin forever?
October 16th, 2009, 01:48 PM
Galaxies form around supermassive black holes of millions, even billions of solar masses. SMBH's have equators around which mass (like accretion disks) spins so that is where matter starts moving outwards over cosmic time. We have globular galaxies which are vaguely spherical where this has not happened.
As to dark matter, every spiral galaxy looks like it is light matter only and there are no anomalies as in unbelievable amounts of unseen matter. DM can be explained away by a number of methods because it relies solely on recessional redshift.
We can detect the spin rates of SMBH's at the centre of galaxies. Some spin at near light speed at their equator. We can detect and have even seen accretion disks of matter falling into a black hole. We can detect the very energetic radiation that this causes. We have incredible gravitation in a tiny area from something we cannot see. So black holes exist.
Every working star is a (almost) stable working nuclear fusion reactor, which we understand fairly well.
As said, conservation of momentum, like the planets revolving around our sun in our solar system.
Everything large in space spins. It seems to be an effect of gravity. I tend to think of it as an object is falling through another dimension in an unknown direction towards it's own centre. But since it is anchored in three dimensions, this comes out as a spin. Even on an atomic level, things spin.
Any large cloud of randomly moving particles will bound to have some net angular momentum.Conservation of angular momentum.[/quote]Why do these spin clouds spin forever?
In atmosphere of the earth, a spin cloud cannot evolve into a hurricane, if there are no additional energy supplies; in the same way, a spin cloud in the universe cannot evolve into a spiral galaxy if there are no additional energy supplies.
Hurricanes are maintained by heats; a hurricane will die and disappear after it lands on continent, because there are no heats supplies. In the same way, I do not think that a spiral galaxy can maintain its complex structures and motions if there are no energy supplies.
We can detect the spin rates of SMBH's at the centre of galaxies. Some spin at near light speed at their equator. We can detect and have even seen accretion disks of matter falling into a black hole. We can detect the very energetic radiation that this causes. We have incredible gravitation in a tiny area from something we cannot see. So black holes exist.
Every working star is a (almost) stable working nuclear fusion reactor, which we understand fairly well.
As said, conservation of momentum, like the planets revolving around our sun in our solar system.
The solar system is governed by the sun. The sun has a stable nuclear fusion reactor in its inner core, so the solar system can be regarded as governed by a stable nuclear fusion reactor.
It is reasonable to assume that a spiral galaxy is maintained by a large stable nuclear fusion reactor.
The complex structures and motions of hurricanes and mushroom clouds of atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are caused by heats, so heats can produce some kinds of forces directly.
Nobody know that heats can produce forces directly; so people invent a lot of new concept such as black holes and dark matters.
The mechanisms governing hurricanes and spiral galaxies are different; don't be fooled by their similar appearance.
Hurricanes are subject to a great deal of friction, both with the surface and the surrounding air mass. No such friction exists to retard the rotation of Galaxies.
The mechanisms governing hurricanes and spiral galaxies are different; don't be fooled by their similar appearance.
Hurricanes are subject to a great deal of friction, both with the surface and the surrounding air mass. No such friction exists to retard the rotation of Galaxies.
Where does a spin cloud come from if the universe is a frictionless vacuum? Who bind this spin cloud together? Some astronomers think that this spin cloud can be bound by gravity, but there are no experimental and observational proofs. In the earth, we know that atmosphere in hurricanes, atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs can be bound together by heats and form complex structures with some kind of motions.
The solar system is governed by the sun. The sun has a stable nuclear fusion reactor in its inner core, so the solar system can be regarded as governed by a stable nuclear fusion reactor.
It is reasonable to assume that a spiral galaxy is maintained by a large stable nuclear fusion reactor.
I certainly know that hurricanes and spiral galaxies are different, but both of them are heat phenomena, and they are similar in structure.
Stable nuclear fusion reactors are main actors in the universe. Centripetal forces are produced by stable nuclear fusion reactors (heats).
A spin cloud in a frictionless universe form a flat spiral galaxy, I do not know how you verify your ideas by experiments or theories.
Physics is an experimental science.
I do not see any relation between these phenomena to construct a paradox. The universe was and is full of random fluctuations - induced by quantum fluctuations on tiny scales and heat sources on larger scales (amongst others). It would be a strong coincidence, if all those motions cancelled out. So, there is always a net motion. Gravity pulls those clouds together, and collisions produce a spin of the combined cloud.
I'd rather say "all astronomers", because that is the only reasonable answer. Clouds do have matter and consequently exert gravity. It is like e.g. the giant gas planets like Jupiter. The reason for them being (almost) spherical is the combination of forces like gas pressure, gravity and rotation. This very rotation leads to flattening at the equator, whose amount depends on the rotational speed (centrifugal force). So, there inevitably is gravity, and this gravity is sufficient to explain the phenomena you talk about. Gravity is attractive, pressure and heat is repellent. This is also the reason for the stability of the sun. It is always the balance of two forces that produce an equilibrium.
No, the heat drives them apart! There must be a counter force to reduce this effect or even reverse it. In experimental fusion reactors, the plasma is confined by a magnetic field. Otherwise, it would just disperse. On large scales like the sun, the enormous mass produces enough gravity to do the job.
Yes partly. But this is only true for the radiation energy that is turned into heat. It is not responsible for keeping the solar system together.
This is nonsense. There is no indication for such an energy source in the Milky Way. So, when it comes to your speculations, you don't need any experimental proof? Interesting.
No, they are not. A galaxy is neither produced nor sustained by heat. A spiral galaxy is entirely formed and sustained by gravity. The spiral arms you see in galaxies are only so prominent, because this is the place where stars are formed. It is not a rotating spiral, it only looks like one. There are density waves travelling through the galaxies that induce star formation producing their appearance. There are even many galaxies rotating in the opposite direction to what may be suggested by their spiral structure. It is similar to water waves. You see the waves travelling, but the individual water molecules do not.
No. Heat does not produce attractive forces. They are repellent. Look up "radiation pressure".
Indeed. I'd suggest, you respect that fact yourself.
I do not see any relation between these phenomena to construct a paradox. The universe was and is full of random fluctuations - induced by quantum fluctuations on tiny scales and heat sources on larger scales (amongst others). It would be a strong coincidence, if all those motions cancelled out. So, there is always a net motion. Gravity pulls those clouds together, and collisions produce a spin of the combined cloud.
I'd rather say "all astronomers", because that is the only reasonable answer. Clouds do have matter and consequently exert gravity. It is like e.g. the giant gas planets like Jupiter. The reason for them being (almost) spherical is the combination of forces like gas pressure, gravity and rotation. This very rotation leads to flattening at the equator, whose amount depends on the rotational speed (centrifugal force). So, there inevitably is gravity, and this gravity is sufficient to explain the phenomena you talk about. Gravity is attractive, pressure and heat is repellent. This is also the reason for the stability of the sun. It is always the balance of two forces that produce an equilibrium.
No, the heat drives them apart! There must be a counter force to reduce this effect or even reverse it. In experimental fusion reactors, the plasma is confined by a magnetic field. Otherwise, it would just disperse. On large scales like the sun, the enormous mass produces enough gravity to do the job.
Yes partly. But this is only true for the radiation energy that is turned into heat. It is not responsible for keeping the solar system together.
This is nonsense. There is no indication for such an energy source in the Milky Way. So, when it comes to your speculations, you don't need any experimental proof? Interesting.
No, they are not. A galaxy is neither produced nor sustained by heat. A spiral galaxy is entirely formed and sustained by gravity. The spiral arms you see in galaxies are only so prominent, because this is the place where stars are formed. It is not a rotating spiral, it only looks like one. There are density waves travelling through the galaxies that induce star formation producing their appearance. There are even many galaxies rotating in the opposite direction to what may be suggested by their spiral structure. It is similar to water waves. You see the waves travelling, but the individual water molecules do not.
No. Heat does not produce attractive forces. They are repellent. Look up "radiation pressure".
Indeed. I'd suggest, you respect that fact yourself.
We come to the fundamental problems of astronomy now: who produce gravity? What is the nature of gravity?
In Newton’s time, a lot of scientists such as Huygens and Leibniz in Europe rejected Newton’s universal law of gravitation.
Our intuition tells us that only huge spherical heavenly bodies such as the sun, the earth, and the moon of the earth can produce gravity, a particle, an apple and a stone cannot produce gravity.
But according to Newton’s universal law of gravitation: a particle, an apple and a stone can produce gravity.
Newton thinks that the heavenly bodies such as the sun and the earth are huge stones made up of small stones, this is not true.
So my question is: how can you prove that a particle can produce gravity？
The Cavendish experiment was able to detect the gravity produced by a 158 kg lead sphere. So by that experiment alone we know that something as small of 158 kg will produce gravity. And though you might try to argue that 158 kg is not a particle, it does prove that objects much less massive than heavenly bodies produce their own gravity. To try and say that say that there is some arbitrary mass between that of a "particle" and 158 kg where gravity suddenly kicks in, is a pretty foolish argument and smacks of grabbing at straws.
Besides that, such a claim would make no difference to mutual gravity as a mechanism in galaxy formation from a cloud of dust and gas. Other mechanisms such as molecular cohesion would form compact clumps of matter more massive than 158 kg, which we know from direct experiment are large enough to produce gravity. These clumps attract each other and the smaller masses to form larger clumps, and hold the cloud together.
The solar system formed cold. Had there been a hot formation, as in an active sun, Jupiter could not have formed where it did, and probably not Saturn either. It formed from a large accretion disk of the kind we have seen around some other stars. Our solar system is about 12 light hours in diameter. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter, so what works for one would not work for the other.
Burning stars are limited in mass. We have stars with a hundred solar masses but they quickly burn out, in thousands of years. Our galaxy is maybe ten billion years old. A fusion reactor/star works by converting light elements to heavier elements by fusing the atomic particles together in a known process so runs out of fuel over time, and the bigger the star is, the hotter it burns and it runs out of fuel sooner.
A burning star of millions of solar masses is not possible. It's own gravity would cause it to collapse at almost light speed, despite the nuclear reactions going on inside it.
Hurricanes and mushroom clouds rely on a medium (our atmosphere). Neither are possible in space because there is no atmosphere to heat and cause temperature differences with cooler air further away. However, in space if you start something moving, it will continue on forever unless acted on by other forces. If the galaxy starts spinning ten billion years ago, space cannot stop it. Only the tiny gravity of other distant galaxies will eventually slow it down over unimaginable time.
There is ample evidence for black holes, whether you like it or not. There is no other way of explaining all the effects we see in one place.
The Cavendish experiment was able to detect the gravity produced by a 158 kg lead sphere. So by that experiment alone we know that something as small of 158 kg will produce gravity. And though you might try to argue that 158 kg is not a particle, it does prove that objects much less massive than heavenly bodies produce their own gravity. To try and say that say that there is some arbitrary mass between that of a "particle" and 158 kg where gravity suddenly kicks in, is a pretty foolish argument and smacks of grabbing at straws.
Besides that, such a claim would make no difference to mutual gravity as a mechanism in galaxy formation from a cloud of dust and gas. Other mechanisms such as molecular cohesion would form compact clumps of matter more massive than 158 kg, which we know from direct experiment are large enough to produce gravity. These clumps attract each other and the smaller masses to form larger clumps, and hold the cloud together.
Newton cannot prove that a particle, an apple and a stone can produce gravity in his Principia.
The Cavendish experiment was done very late.
The attractive force between two 47.3 kg lead spheres is less than 0.000004N; this force is too small to be measured precisely.
Newton’s universal law of gravitation is the fundamental law of astronomy, it cannot base on the Cavendish kind experiments. We have other suitable experiments such as measuring the gravity of asteroids to test it.
Only stable nuclear fusion reactors can produce centripetal forces, and sunspots and spiral galaxies are standard stable nuclear fusion reactors.
I have a thread “sunspots and stable nuclear fusion reactors” in this forum.
No, they can't and they aren't. Where is the proof? Sunspots are not regions of nuclear fusion. They are much to cold. The fusion process in stars only takes place in the core.
No, they can't and they aren't. Where is the proof? Sunspots are not regions of nuclear fusion. They are much to cold. The fusion process in stars only takes place in the core.
Astronomers think that the sun can maintain stable nuclear fusion reactions in its core just by a centripetal force (gravity), it is a good idea, but it cannot be verified by experiments, because nobody can go in inside of the sun. I must emphasis that physics is an experimental science.
Fusion scientists think that they can achieve stable nuclear fusion reactions just by electromagnetic forces, but they have not succeeded.
We do not know that heats can produce forces directly.
Sunspots kind stable nuclear fusion reactors are governed by a centripetal force and electromagnetic forces.
I have a thread "Sunspots and stable nuclear fusion reactors " in this forum.
Thanks. I learned something beautiful today. :-D
Continuously repeating nonsense does not make it true. These are the facts:No, they can't and they aren't. Where is the proof? Sunspots are not regions of nuclear fusion. They are much to cold. The fusion process in stars only takes place in the core.
Astronomers think that the sun can maintain stable nuclear fusion reactions in its core just by a centripetal force (gravity), it is a good idea, but it cannot be verified by experiments, because nobody can go in inside of the sun. I must emphasis that physics is an experimental science.
Fusion scientists think that they can achieve stable nuclear fusion reactions just by electromagnetic forces, but they have not succeeded.
We do not know that heats can produce forces directly.
Sunspots kind stable nuclear fusion reactors are governed by a centripetal force and electromagnetic forces.
I have a thread "Sunspots and stable nuclear fusion reactors " in this forum.
Physics is an empirical science, i.e. it is an interaction of theories and experiments or observations. An experiment tells you nothing without a theory or a model to explain the results. It is the other way around: experiments are the tools to verify or falsify a theory. If the results of an observation or an experiment match the predictions of a theory, the theory is confirmed.
Nuclear fusion can be initiated and sustained, if the temperature is high enough. This can be achieved by many possibilities. Natural fusion reactors like stars produce such temperatures entirely by gravitational pressure. Thermodynamics is a well understood discipline in physics, and the necessary temperatures in the stellar cores can be easily calculated. The underlying equations are the same that describe the gas dynamics in the Earth's atmosphere.
Artificial fusion reactors are heated by microwave radiation or laser pulses. The magnetic fields are only necessary to confine the plasma to the reaction chamber. In nature, this is also done by gravity. In this way, there is even a natural control mechanism that stabilises the fusion process. You see, there is a balance of forces: radiation pressure and gravitational pressure.
Sunspots cannot serve as nuclear fusion reactors, because the temperature is much to low there. It is even lower than the mean surface temperature of the sun. That's the reason why these spots appear so dark. This is an observational and experimental fact.
As I said, you should apply the same standards to your claims that you are using to question the established knowledge.
Moderator mode:
If you continue to post unsubstantiated pseudoscience, I will have to use my moderating magical wand and move your posts to an appropriate sub-forum. Just referring to another thread won't do the job. A few summarising words of explanation are needed here.
Dishmaster (Moderator)
Sunspots cannot serve as nuclear fusion reactors, because the temperature is much to low there. It is even lower than the mean surface temperature of the sun. That's the reason why these spots appear so dark. This is an observational and experimental fact.
As I said, you should apply the same standards to your claims that you are using to question the established knowledge.
Sunspots and stable nuclear fusion reactors
The big problems of nuclear fusion research are:
Nobody has seen a stable nuclear fusion reactor, we do not know what a stable nuclear reactor looks alike; we even have not a concept about stable nuclear fusion reactors.
At present, the sun is the only place can we find a stable nuclear fusion reactor.
In fact, sunspots are one kind of standard stable nuclear fusion reactors.
But, it is very difficult for us to understand that sunspots are stable nuclear fusion reactors.
Then, how can we know that sunspots are stable nuclear fusion reactors?
Every sunspot has a magnetic field. The magnetic field of a circular sunspot is similar to the magnetic field at the end of a long solenoid.
Some astronomers such as Hale and Cowling want to use circular electric currents to simulate the magnetic fields of the sunspots.
The circular electric currents are very large (1,000,000,000,000 Amperes for middle size circular sunspots), if we use a long solenoid to simulate the magnetic field of a circular sunspot.
In nuclear fusion experiments such as Z-pinch experiments, hollow cylindrical plasmas (a long solenoid) with large circular electric currents will pinch and form high temperature high density hollow cylindrical plasmas, and nuclear fusion reactions will happen in these plasmas.
So, strong stable magnetic fields of the sunspots just mean that there are stable nuclear fusion reactions in the sunspots.
But there is a problem, who produce the large circular electric currents of the long solenoids of the sunspots?
Astronomers think that sunspots are magnetic flux tubes, because nobody knows how to produce these large circular electric currents of long solenoids.
In high temperature plasmas, large circular electric currents just mean that large number of electrons, protons and ions move circularly in different direction or in same direction with different speed.
According to Newton’s three laws of motion (notice: Do not use Euler equation and Navier-Stokes equation of fluid mechanics), we need a centripetal force to drive the electrons, protons and ions move circularly.
But there are problems:
There are different kinds of centripetal forces, so what kind of the centripetal force drives these electrons, protons and ions of plasmas move circularly? Can this centripetal force describe all the plasmas motions of the sunspots (include Evershed flow)? Who produce this centripetal force?
We cannot get an answer just by studying sunspots, we must study other phenomena.
Sunspots must be similar to atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs and hurricanes, if sunspots are stable nuclear fusion reactors, why? Because all of them release huge amount of heats continuously or in pulse manner, they are heats phenomena.
Then, what are similarity and differences among atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, hurricanes and sunspots?
(1) Eyes
The umbrae of the sunspots are just the eyes of the sunspots, like the eyes of hurricanes.
(2) Eyewalls and magnetic fields
The magnetic fields of circular sunspots can be simulated by long solenoids with large circular electric currents. These long solenoids are just eyewalls of the sunspots, like eyewalls of the hurricanes. There are heavy rains in the eyewalls of the hurricanes; but there are large circular electric currents and nuclear fusion reactions in the eyewalls of the sunspots.
(3) Evershed flow
Atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, hurricanes and sunspots all have Evershed kind of outflows. But velocity of the Evershed flow of the sunspot is very large (1-9km/s).
(4) Low temperature
The temperatures of the sunspots and some mushroom clouds of hydrogen bombs are lower than that of their surrounding atmosphere.
(5) Latitude distribution and periodical cycles.
Hurricanes are similar to sunspots in latitude distribution and periodical variations of numbers.
(6) Energy
Atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, hurricanes and sunspots all are heat phenomena.
Conclusion:
Some astronomers such as John Herschel and Hale think that sunspots are cyclone vortices of the sun.
In fact, sunspots are just hurricanes of the sun, and these hurricanes have large circular electric currents and nuclear fusion reactions in their eyewalls.
So sunspots are one kind of standard stable nuclear fusion reactors.
The complex structures and motions of atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, hurricanes and sunspots are caused by heats, so heats can produce some kinds of forces directly (Notice: Do not use Euler equation and Navier-Stokes equation of fluid mechanics). Certainly, electromagnetic forces play a role in eyewalls of the sunspots.
Unmitigated nonsense. We have been operating fusion reactors, with increasin g efficiency, for a couple of decades. http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
I will close this thread in order to stop those posts full of ridiculous ideas. But I will leave it in this sub-forum, because it still contains some science.
Dishmaster (Moderator)
| « pluto | Increased Seasonal Earth Tilt or Optical Refraction Anomaly? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
