Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 167 of 167

Thread: The average age of matter in the Steady State model

  1. #101  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    your overnight posts confirm to me you are an intellectually dishonest crank and/or incredibly stupid, ignore list....
    Some other frustrated scientists can't except the basic idea that some people are living on the other side of the world…
    They would either have to be completely mad (Are you the frustrated scientist?) or completely stupid (Are you the frustrated scientist?) to not accept that people live on the other side of the world.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Let's move on;
    So far we have discussed about the feasibility that any star in a disc system must drift outwards. Therefore, Lets see what could be the impact of the assumption that all the stars in spiral galaxies are drifting outwards.
    Step Three –Spiral galaxy, Supper massive Black hole
    If all the stars are moving outwards, then it is expected that after billions years the center could be empty of matter or stars. But it isn't. Therefore, somehow, the suppermassive black hole must compensate on the matter and stars which are drifting outwards. It should create new matter.
    Some people believe that the black hole eats the nearby stars.
    Please see thefollowing article:
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/dark-star-diaries/2014/05/02/cloud-bound-for-milky-ways-black-hole-puzzles-astronomers/
    The astronomers were expecting that the G2 (a dusty, windy star) will be eaten by the Black hole as it was very close to it. But in fact – it wasn't eaten by the black hole ""Both nights, there it was.“We saw G2, clear as day,” Ghez said."
    So, this article supports the idea that black hole does not eat any star as all the stars are drifting away from the black hole.
    In the following article it is stated that there is evidence that the black hole spit its food.
    http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
    "The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater. Of all the gas that falls toward th black hole, 99 percent gets spewed back out into space, new observations show,making the blackhole akin to a toddler whose food ends up mostly on the floor,rather than hismouth."
    But it was proved that the black hole doesn't eat any star. Therefore, the black hole isn't a messy eater. It just spit out new matter..

    This new matter is used for new star formation activity -

    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, aswell as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    So far we have discussed about the feasibility that any star in a disc system must drift outwards
    An idea which only you have, there's no evidence or mechanism for, and is certainly not feasible.

    So, this article supports the idea that black hole does not eat any star as all the stars are drifting away from the black hole.
    Again, simple nonsense which is belied by observation of stars in close orbit around the SBH at the galactic center.

    This is just the same woo you've posted for years.

    It's long past time for this thread to hit the trash.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    if the moon, mars and we being pushed outwards by some uberforce from the galactic center; shouldn't the sun also?

    and idk, seeing the earth to sun mass ratio, shouldn't the sun have more kinetic energy and actually get closer to us then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if the moon, mars and we being pushed outwards by some uberforce from the galactic center; shouldn't the sun also?

    and idk, seeing the earth to sun mass ratio, shouldn't the sun have more kinetic energy and actually get closer to us then?
    Everything is already moving in these spirals throughout the Universe (well up to the galactic level at least). For we orbit the Sun and the Solar System orbits the Milky Way galaxy. OK not many will continue that progression on and say "and the galaxies orbit the Universe" (but I did see a paper suggesting that many years ago).

    But what I wanted to say is even though the Sun is speeding away from us on one side of our orbit and towards us on the other (this might have something to do with our elliptical orbit of the Sun), the Earth remains in a relatively stable orbit. There are situations where the planetary orbits would get chaotic and bodies would fly off into space (the Three body Problem).
    Now in one way we are moving away from the centre, but when it comes to stars orbiting BHs, or dense stars orbiting each other there was a loss of orbital energy through gravitational radiation. So in these cases they fall toward each other rather than fly apart.
    Well that is my way of summing the situation up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if the moon, mars and we being pushed outwards by some uberforce from the galactic center; shouldn't the sun also?
    Let me clear this issue.
    Any orbiting star is drifting away from it's host.
    Therefore, the Moon is drifting away from the Earth.
    The Earth is drifting away from the Sun
    All the planets in the solar system are drifting away from the Sun
    The Sun is drifting away from the Supper massive black hole (or if you wish – the galactic center)
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    and idk, seeing the earth to sun mass ratio, shouldn't the sun have more kinetic energy and actually get closer to us then?
    No.
    The Earth is just a small fraction of the Sun. The sun is just a small fraction of the Black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if the moon, mars and we being pushed outwards by some uberforce from the galactic center; shouldn't the sun also?
    Let me clear this issue.
    Any orbiting star is drifting away from it's host.
    Therefore, the Moon is drifting away from the Earth.
    The Earth is drifting away from the Sun
    All the planets in the solar system are drifting away from the Sun
    The Sun is drifting away from the Supper massive black hole (or if you wish – the galactic center)
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    and idk, seeing the earth to sun mass ratio, shouldn't the sun have more kinetic energy and actually get closer to us then?
    No.
    The Earth is just a small fraction of the Sun. The sun is just a small fraction of the Black hole.
    This is ALL totally unsupported crap.

    It never bothers you that no one has ever agreed with any of the garbage you come up with?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Alex
    I'm quite disappointed from you.
    Instead of just claiming that this theory should be trashed, why can't you answer the questions which you had been asked in no. 89 as follow:
    Thanks to AlexG we all know that the Earth and moon should drift outwards due to tidal gravitational effects.
    However, it seems that you are not fully satisfied that your explanation supports the Idea that all the planets and moons in the Universe must drift outwards.
    Therefore, if the tidal gravitational effects drifts the Earth from the Sun,and the Moon from the Erath, you are requested to explain the following:
    1. Why the Tidal gravitational forces shouldn't drift Mars and Venus from the Sun?
    2. Why shouldn't it drift Europa Moon from Jupiter, or Titan Moon from Saturn?
    3. Why this tidal force could perfectly affect the Earth but it shouldn't affect any other planet or moon in the solar system or in the whole Universe?
    4. Is it expected that some of planets or moons might drift inwards? If so,which one, and why?

    If it is too difficult for you to answer – than feel free to keep on with your current approach
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    One more remark –
    Please see the following:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html#.U8LBB8uKDIV
    "Having such a precise yardstickallowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg tocalculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's notmuch – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than themeasurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward."
    So, if there is something which is pushing the earth outwards, Why this something can't push the other planets outwards???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Alex
    ......
    4. Is it expected that some of planets or moons might drift inwards? If so,which one, and why?

    .....
    It depends on how fast the planet spins in relation to the moon. If the earth took 29 days to spin on its axis it wouldn't loose angular momentum to the moon and hence no further drift. So really slow spinning planets have already lost their moons with them breaking up and impacting with the planets e.g. as is thought to have happened on Mercury and Venus.
    Mars has a moon which is tidally decelerating still.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    One more remark –
    Please see the following:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html#.U8LBB8uKDIV
    "Having such a precise yardstickallowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg tocalculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's notmuch – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than themeasurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward."
    So, if there is something which is pushing the earth outwards, Why this something can't push the other planets outwards???
    It is orbital energy that determines the orbital radius, so if the planets you are talking of are gaining orbital energy they too will be drifting outward. Has someone said they aren't?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    1. Why the Tidal gravitational forces shouldn't drift Mars and Venus from the Sun?
    Because neither Mars nor Venus has a large moon tidally locked with the planet.

    2. Why shouldn't it drift Europa Moon from Jupiter, or Titan Moon from Saturn?
    Because neither moon is tidally locked with the planet.

    3. Why this tidal force could perfectly affect the Earth but it shouldn't affect any other planet or moon in the solar system or in the whole Universe?
    Because no other moon is as large in proportion to the planet, and none are tidally locked.

    4. Is it expected that some of planets or moons might drift inwards? If so,which one, and why?
    No.

    If it is too difficult for you to answer – than feel free to keep on with your current approach
    You're an ignorant crank who can't even get other cranks to agree with you.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    1. Why the Tidal gravitational forces shouldn't drift Mars and Venus from the Sun?
    Because neither Mars nor Venus has a large moon tidally locked with the planet.

    2. Why shouldn't it drift Europa Moon from Jupiter, or Titan Moon from Saturn?
    Because neither moon is tidally locked with the planet.

    3. Why this tidal force could perfectly affect the Earth but it shouldn't affect any other planet or moon in the solar system or in the whole Universe?
    Because no other moon is as large in proportion to the planet, and none are tidally locked.

    4. Is it expected that some of planets or moons might drift inwards? If so,which one, and why?
    No.

    If it is too difficult for you to answer – than feel free to keep on with your current approach
    You're an ignorant crank who can't even get other cranks to agree with you.
    Can you support any of these statements? What has the fact of us having got a tidally locked Moon got anything to do with the distance of Earth to the Sun? You are wrong about that aren't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    C'mon Alex where is the answer? You called me an idiot before now's your chance to prove it! I'll ask you again:
    What has the fact of us having got a tidally locked Moon got anything to do with the distance of Earth to the Sun?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The answer is here: Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Read it yourself idiot.

    And now you go back on ignore.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The answer is here: Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Read it yourself idiot.

    And now you go back on ignore.
    That link to Wikipedia article on tidal locking does nothing to answer the question: "What has the fact of us having got a tidally locked Moon got anything to do with the distance of Earth to the Sun?"

    So ignore me if you like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post

    However,my theory is based on a very simple evidence. It is - the drifting planet Phenomenon.

    So far we know that the Moon is drifting away from the Earth, while the Earth is drifting away from the sun.

    Based on that, I assume that any planet or Moon in the Universe should drift outwards from its hosting star. Therefore, all the planets in the solar system must drift outwards, while the sun should drift outwards from the center of the Milky Way.

    If you can prove that there is even one planet or moon in the Universe which is drifting inwards than there is a severe error in my theory.
    Phobos is drifting inward, so is Metis and Adrastea. In fact, any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates or orbits in the opposite direction will drift in.

    But even if you consider only situations where everything orbits in the same direction and the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts, you cannot assume that the parts will drift apart. You can't just say "the Moon drifts away from the Earth, so therefore the stars of the galaxy must drift away from the center" unless you can show that the mechanism that results in the former situation applies to the second.

    It turns out that it doesn't and here's why. The outward drift of the moon (called tidal acceleration) is due to the fact that the Moon raises tidal bulges on the Earth, As the Earth drag between the main body of the Earth and these bulges causes them to be pulled out of alignment with the Moon. Resultant "tug of war" between the Earth trying to drag the bulges with it and the Moon trying to keep them aligned with itself results in a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon causing the Moon to climb to a higher orbit and the Earth's rotation to slow.

    Note that this requires two things: Tidal bulges and some type of friction between the central body and the bulges. Now consider a galaxy, it is a collection of individual stars orbiting around a common center of gravity. Unlike the Earth, there is no friction between its internal parts. So if we were to place a large gravity source next to it, it would form "tidal bulges", but there would be no tendency for the bulges to be dragged around by the galaxy's rotation, and thus no mechanism to transfer angular momentum.

    In addition, the very distribution of stars in a galaxy works against tidal acceleration. It works for the Moon because the Moon, being a single body can produce a single tidal bulge. But if we were to put a large number of Moons around the Earth in a ring, each one would try to form its own tidal bulges. All these tidal bulges trying to from in different directions would work against each other any you would end up with no tidal bulges. We actually already see this effect with the Sun and Moon. During half Moons, the Sun and Moon try to each form tidal bulges at right angles to each other. The result is that the Sun's tidal effect cancels out some of the Moon's and we end up with smaller tidal bulges. ( Which is way the values of low and high tides change from day to day over roughly a period of one month.)

    With a galaxy, any interior stars are surrounded by a ring of outer stars. The pulls of all these stars in different directions results in no net tidal bulge on the inner group of stars.

    So, the distribution of the stars prevents the formation of the needed bulges and the lack of any friction between the stars that form the galaxies body both prevent tidal acceleration from affecting the stars making up a galaxy.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    A LIKE for the above, now see how the crank will dishonestly ignore it and claim there is no evidence against his nonsense despite admitting in the post you quoted that a single example (you gave more than one) means there is a severe error in his theory (sic) Who wants to bet he will accept it and stop posting this rubbish...anyone....*tumbleweed*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post

    However,my theory is based on a very simple evidence. It is - the drifting planet Phenomenon.

    So far we know that the Moon is drifting away from the Earth, while the Earth is drifting away from the sun.

    Based on that, I assume that any planet or Moon in the Universe should drift outwards from its hosting star. Therefore, all the planets in the solar system must drift outwards, while the sun should drift outwards from the center of the Milky Way.

    If you can prove that there is even one planet or moon in the Universe which is drifting inwards than there is a severe error in my theory.
    Phobos is drifting inward, so is Metis and Adrastea. In fact, any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates or orbits in the opposite direction will drift in.

    But even if you consider only situations where everything orbits in the same direction and the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts, you cannot assume that the parts will drift apart. You can't just say "the Moon drifts away from the Earth, so therefore the stars of the galaxy must drift away from the center" unless you can show that the mechanism that results in the former situation applies to the second.

    It turns out that it doesn't and here's why. The outward drift of the moon (called tidal acceleration) is due to the fact that the Moon raises tidal bulges on the Earth, As the Earth drag between the main body of the Earth and these bulges causes them to be pulled out of alignment with the Moon. Resultant "tug of war" between the Earth trying to drag the bulges with it and the Moon trying to keep them aligned with itself results in a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon causing the Moon to climb to a higher orbit and the Earth's rotation to slow.

    Note that this requires two things: Tidal bulges and some type of friction between the central body and the bulges. Now consider a galaxy, it is a collection of individual stars orbiting around a common center of gravity. Unlike the Earth, there is no friction between its internal parts. So if we were to place a large gravity source next to it, it would form "tidal bulges", but there would be no tendency for the bulges to be dragged around by the galaxy's rotation, and thus no mechanism to transfer angular momentum.

    In addition, the very distribution of stars in a galaxy works against tidal acceleration. It works for the Moon because the Moon, being a single body can produce a single tidal bulge. But if we were to put a large number of Moons around the Earth in a ring, each one would try to form its own tidal bulges. All these tidal bulges trying to from in different directions would work against each other any you would end up with no tidal bulges. We actually already see this effect with the Sun and Moon. During half Moons, the Sun and Moon try to each form tidal bulges at right angles to each other. The result is that the Sun's tidal effect cancels out some of the Moon's and we end up with smaller tidal bulges. ( Which is way the values of low and high tides change from day to day over roughly a period of one month.)

    With a galaxy, any interior stars are surrounded by a ring of outer stars. The pulls of all these stars in different directions results in no net tidal bulge on the inner group of stars.

    So, the distribution of the stars prevents the formation of the needed bulges and the lack of any friction between the stars that form the galaxies body both prevent tidal acceleration from affecting the stars making up a galaxy.
    You have put up a good argument, but I have my doubts about the evening-out affect you are talking about. The Earth is being tidally accelerated by the Sun, so can we assume all the other planets in the Solar System are too? (for none of the planets have an orbital period as short as a month) If it happens on the Solar System level it could easily hold true on a galactic level. The time scale would be extremely long but that is just saying some stars will be drifting out and others could be drifting in, depending on the tidal forces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    A LIKE for the above, now see how the crank will dishonestly ignore it and claim there is no evidence against his nonsense despite admitting in the post you quoted that a single example (you gave more than one) means there is a severe error in his theory (sic) Who wants to bet he will accept it and stop posting this rubbish...anyone....*tumbleweed*
    Like you, I am pessimistic that Janus' terrific post will cause DL to abandon his crusade. But by educating others who might happen upon this thread from outside, Janus' effort serves as a wonderful demonstration of why it's worthwhile to take the trouble, even if that effort doesn't help the OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    Wise words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    DL has dedicated many years of his life to this woo. It's doubtful he will ever change.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    DL has dedicated many years of his life to this woo. It's doubtful he will ever change.
    Yes, the True Believer is not deceived by mere science. He will not be fooled by Satan's minions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    DL has dedicated many years of his life to this woo. It's doubtful he will ever change.
    Yes, the True Believer is not deceived by mere science. He will not be fooled by Satan's minions.
    What are you saying?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    DL has dedicated many years of his life to this woo. It's doubtful he will ever change.
    Yes, the True Believer is not deceived by mere science. He will not be fooled by Satan's minions.
    What are you saying?
    What part is unclear?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Robitty sees the word 'Satan', and he gets all wet and squishy.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    ^^This made me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Robitty sees the word 'Satan', and he gets all wet and squishy.
    I really miss the "like" button.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Robitty sees the word 'Satan', and he gets all wet and squishy.
    I really miss the "like" button.
    I think the little devils have done the answering for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Hello Janus

    Thanks for the profesunal answer. (Sorry for the delay in my replay as I was out of the country)
    However:
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    Phobos is drifting inward, so is Metis and Adrastea. In fact, any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates or orbits in the opposite direction will drift in.

    Those examples are none relevant to this theory.
    Phobos is an astroid.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)
    "Phobos and Deimos both have much in common with carbonaceous C-type asteroids"
    "Phobos has dimensions of 27 × 22 × 18 km,"
    Metis and Adrastea are two objects in a ring or belt of asteroids that collides with each other.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Jupiter
    "The main and halo ringsconsist of dust ejected from the moons Metis, Adrastea,and other unobserved parent bodies as the result of high-velocity impacts"
    I'm looking for a real planet or moon with symmetrical ball shape and some sort of a minimum size (as our moon).
    Asteroid or a broken star which its body had been converted into ring of rocks, asteroids and dust are not relevant.
    Let's focus at this phase on the solar system.
    Based on the available knowledge on the tidal – Do we have any expectation/info if Mars or Venus are drifting inwards or outwards?
    Is there any planet (Ceres and Pluto are not relevant) or a single real moon in the solar system that are drifting inwards?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    See post #118. Cranks are SO predictable...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Hello Janus

    With regards to the opposite orbit direction of the moon (retrograde orbit)
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    In fact, any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates or orbits in the opposite direction will drift in.

    Please be aware that retrograde orbit is not relevant to this theory based on the following:
    1. All the stars in spiral galaxy have a direct motion. None of the 400 Billions stars in the Milky way has an opposite direction.
    2. All the planets in the solar system have a direct motion.
    3. Based on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)"Moons in retrograde orbits cannot form out of the same region of the solar nebula as the planets they orbit, so Triton must have been captured from elsewhere. Triton might therefore have originated in the Kuiper belt". Hence, a moon in a retrograde orbit should be some sort of an Asteroid which has been captured in its current opposite orbit direction. Therefore, its drifting direction is not relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Hello Janus

    With regards to the opposite orbit direction of the moon (retrograde orbit)
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    In fact, any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates or orbits in the opposite direction will drift in.

    Please be aware that retrograde orbit is not relevant to this theory based on the following:
    1. All the stars in spiral galaxy have a direct motion. None of the 400 Billions stars in the Milky way has an opposite direction.
    2. All the planets in the solar system have a direct motion.
    3. Based on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)"Moons in retrograde orbits cannot form out of the same region of the solar nebula as the planets they orbit, so Triton must have been captured from elsewhere. Triton might therefore have originated in the Kuiper belt". Hence, a moon in a retrograde orbit should be some sort of an Asteroid which has been captured in its current opposite orbit direction. Therefore, its drifting direction is not relevant.
    OK fair enough but what about the other category that drift in?
    any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates ... drifts in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    It turns out that it doesn't and here's why. The outward drift of the moon (called tidal acceleration) is due to thefact that the Moon raises tidal bulges on the Earth, As the Earth drag betweenthe main body of the Earth and these bulges causes them to be pulled out of alignment with the Moon. Resultant "tug of war" between the Earth trying to drag the bulges with it and the Moon trying to keep them aligned with itself results in a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon causing theMoon to climb to a higher orbit and the Earth's rotation to slow. .
    O.K.
    I do not fully agree with this explanation based on the following:
    If this is correct, then Mars shouldn't drift outwards. It doesn't have real moons, (only two asteroids which orbits in the opposite direction and drifting inwards). Do you agree?
    Therefore, if it will be discovered that Mars is drifting outwards, the science will have to invent better theory for this drifting. Do you agree?
    It seems that the science is great on finding an explanation for what they see, but is very poor in expectation.
    The science had no clue that the earth and the moon are drifting outwards. All the science community was in shock after this discovery. Now, the science comes with explanation on that. Why they couldn't expect it before? Why the science has no clue about the drifting direction of all the planets in the solar system. I couldn't find even one article which discuss on this important issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    But even if you consider only situations where everything orbits in the samedirection and the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts, you cannotassume that the parts will drift apart. You can't just say "the Moondrifts away from the Earth, so therefore the stars of the galaxy must driftaway from the center" unless you can show that the mechanism that resultsin the former situation applies to the second. .

    Let's assume that we agree that all the planets drift outwards. In this case, this is an indication that in a disc system the stars should drift outwards. Spiral galaxy is a disc system by definition, therefore, the stars in this disc system should also drift outwards. Hence, this mechanism is called disc system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    It turns out that it doesn't and here's why. The outward drift of the moon (called tidal acceleration) is due to thefact that the Moon raises tidal bulges on the Earth, As the Earth drag betweenthe main body of the Earth and these bulges causes them to be pulled out of alignment with the Moon. Resultant "tug of war" between the Earth trying to drag the bulges with it and the Moon trying to keep them aligned with itself results in a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon causing theMoon to climb to a higher orbit and the Earth's rotation to slow. .
    O.K.
    I do not fully agree with this explanation based on the following:
    If this is correct, then Mars shouldn't drift outwards. It doesn't have real moons, (only two asteroids which orbits in the opposite direction and drifting inwards). Do you agree?
    Therefore, if it will be discovered that Mars is drifting outwards, the science will have to invent better theory for this drifting. Do you agree?
    It seems that the science is great on finding an explanation for what they see, but is very poor in expectation.
    The science had no clue that the earth and the moon are drifting outwards. All the science community was in shock after this discovery. Now, the science comes with explanation on that. Why they couldn't expect it before? Why the science has no clue about the drifting direction of all the planets in the solar system. I couldn't find even one article which discuss on this important issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    But even if you consider only situations where everything orbits in the samedirection and the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts, you cannotassume that the parts will drift apart. You can't just say "the Moondrifts away from the Earth, so therefore the stars of the galaxy must driftaway from the center" unless you can show that the mechanism that resultsin the former situation applies to the second. .

    Let's assume that we agree that all the planets drift outwards. In this case, this is an indication that in a disc system the stars should drift outwards. Spiral galaxy is a disc system by definition, therefore, the stars in this disc system should also drift outwards. Hence, this mechanism is called disc system.
    We calculated the amount of movement and it was insignificant, so why say " I couldn't find even one article which discuss on this important issue." That is an exaggeration for sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    We calculated the amount of movement and it was insignificant, so why say " I couldn't find even one article which discuss on this important issue." That is an exaggeration for sure.

    Thanks
    What do you mean by: "We calculated the amount of movement and it was insignificant?"
    Does it mean that the science expects that there will be no drifting in the orbit of the planets?
    Does it mean that Mars for example shouldn't drift outwards?
    Can you please highlight one article on this issue? I just couldn't find one by myself.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveLee View Post
    Hello Janus

    With regards tothe opposite orbit direction of the moon (retrograde orbit)
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    In fact, any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates or orbits in the opposite direction will drift in.
    Please be aware that retrograde orbit is not relevant to this theory based on the following:
    1. All the stars in spiral galaxy have a direct motion. None of the 400 Billions stars in the Milky way has an opposite direction.
    2. All the planets in the solar system have a direct motion.
    3. Based on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)"Moons in retrograde orbits cannot form out of the same region of the solarnebula as the planets they orbit, so Triton must have been captured from elsewhere. Triton might therefore have originated in the Kuiperbelt". Hence, a moon in a retrograde orbit should be some sort of an Asteroid which has been captured in its current opposite orbit direction. Therefore, its drifting direction is not relevant.

    OK fair enough but what about the other category that drift in?
    any moon that orbits faster than its host planet rotates... drifts in.
    Can you please advice which moon orbits faster than its host planet rotates and drifts in? Is it a real moon or just one more Asteroid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Can you please advice which moon orbits faster than its host planet rotates and drifts in? Is it a real moon or just one more Asteroid?
    You need to define what a real moon is then first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You need to define what a real moon is then first.

    A real moon is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    I'm looking for a real planet or moon with symmetrical ball shape and some sort of a minimum size (as our moon).
    Asteroid or a broken star which its body had been converted into ring of rocks, asteroids and dust is not relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    So, it is clear that the science consider that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system which is drifting outwards. The science has full confidence that there is no other planet which is drifting inwards or outwards.
    Therefore, Nasa didn't even try to verify if Mars is drifting outwards, although, they might have an immediate capability to do so.
    Therefore, I'm ready to set the following offer to Nasa:
    Please verify the drifting direction of Mars.
    If it drifts inwards or does not drift – I will pay Nasa 10,000$ and stop all my "nonsense theory".
    If it drifts outwards – I do not want to get any payment, However, the science community will have to except my Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The usual David Lee nonsense.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, it is clear that the science consider that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system which is drifting outwards. The science has full confidence that there is no other planet which is drifting inwards or outwards.
    Therefore, Nasa didn't even try to verify if Mars is drifting outwards, although, they might have an immediate capability to do so.
    Therefore, I'm ready to set the following offer to Nasa:
    Please verify the drifting direction of Mars.
    If it drifts inwards or does not drift – I will pay Nasa 10,000$ and stop all my "nonsense theory".
    If it drifts outwards – I do not want to get any payment, However, the science community will have to except my Theory.
    It has been always accept by science that the planets drift outward due to tidal acceleration and from the lessening mass of the Sun, as it loses mass via the radiation of energy and CMEs over its lifetime. So it sounds like you took a pretty safe bet. The drift of the Earth has been measured and it is minimal compared to the Earth -Sun distance.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; August 3rd, 2014 at 02:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    I must say i am quite confused with this article as it is stating that the steady state theory must have a size when the SS theory states that the universe is infinite and has existed for an infinite amount of time. i would not worry trying to contradict it its clear that it is an incorrect theory, the hubble program alone has proved the niverse is expanding
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, it is clear that the science consider that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system which is drifting outwards. The science has full confidence that there is no other planet which is drifting inwards or outwards.
    Therefore, Nasa didn't even try to verify if Mars is drifting outwards, although, they might have an immediate capability to do so.
    Therefore, I'm ready to set the following offer to Nasa:
    Please verify the drifting direction of Mars.
    If it drifts inwards or does not drift – I will pay Nasa 10,000$ and stop all my "nonsense theory".
    If it drifts outwards – I do not want to get any payment, However, the science community will have to except my Theory.
    It has been always accept by science that the planets drift outward due to tidal acceleration and from the lessening mass of the Sun, as it loses mass via the radiation of energy and CMEs over its lifetime. So it sounds like you took a pretty safe bet. The drift of the Earth has been measured and it is minimal compared to the Earth -Sun distance.
    Thanks Robittybob1
    Some time ago I have got the following reply from Alex:
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The earth is drifting slowly outward because the tides transfer gravitational energy from the moon to the earth. No other planet has a large enough moon to have the same effect. So the earth is the only one moving outward. No other planets are drifting inward or outward.
    It's perfectly O.K. that you think difrently.
    So, you claim that even if all the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards that is quite expected.
    O.K. but what about all the real moons in the Solar system. For example: Titen, Callisto, Io, Europa, Triton.
    Is it also expected that those moons should drift outwards?
    However;
    Till the last year some scientists believed that the size of the universe is the visible universe. Today it seems that the science start to assume that it should be bigger.
    I have expected that long time ago.
    I do believe that this new theory gives an answer to any phenomenon that we see and will see in the Universe.
    Just ask and I'm ready to explain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    ....
    Thanks Robittybob1
    Some time ago I have got the following reply from Alex:
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The earth is drifting slowly outward because the tides transfer gravitational energy from the moon to the earth. No other planet has a large enough moon to have the same effect. So the earth is the only one moving outward. No other planets are drifting inward or outward.
    It's perfectly O.K. that you think difrently.
    So, you claim that even if all the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards that is quite expected.
    O.K. but what about all the real moons in the Solar system. For example: Titen, Callisto, Io, Europa, Triton.
    Is it also expected that those moons should drift outwards?
    However;
    Till the last year some scientists believed that the size of the universe is the visible universe. Today it seems that the science start to assume that it should be bigger.
    I have expected that long time ago.
    I do believe that this new theory gives an answer to any phenomenon that we see and will see in the Universe.
    Just ask and I'm ready to explain.
    When I thought about this issue more I was wondering how many tidal bulges would the Sun have and I resolved there would be two, one either side of the Sun, but this would be the combined bulge from the net gravitational pull of the planets acting on the Sun (I said it this Newtonian way as I am old fashioned but I am tempted to explain it using warped spacetime but it is just complicated so forgive please.) So what would the combined pull of the planets look like? Which planets would have the largest influence on the shape of the bulge?
    That would be an interesting project to work through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    With regards to the tidal bulges:
    Would you kindly tell me when this theory had been developed? Was it before discovery that the Moon and the Earth are drifting outwards? Or just after?
    This is quite interesting.
    If the science is so clever, I would expect that they will develop this theory long time before the drifting outwards discovery of the moon and the Earth.
    However, I assume that as usual, this theory had been developed just after this shocking discovery (at that time).
    If this is correct, than it proves that the science have the ability to explain only what we see.
    Let's take one more example – The drifting directin of the sun from the center of the galaxy.
    Today it is quite clear that the science believe that the sun is not drifting inwards or outwards. While, I know for sure that the sun is drifting outwards.
    So, if one day they will discover this "shocking discovery" they will rewind the current Tidal bulges theory and set some adaptation to adjust this discovery.
    The main project for the science is to have the ability to expect what they should see and get correct results.
    In most of the cases, we read about many "puzzled scientist" which get different results from their expectation.
    This proves that the science has a sever error in his current mainstream concept. The tidal bulges theory might be one item in the long error list which will be discovered one day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    Another dollop of dung from dimwit Dave...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    With regards to the tidal bulges:
    Would you kindly tell me when this theory had been developed? Was it before discovery that the Moon and the Earth are drifting outwards? Or just after?
    This is quite interesting.
    If the science is so clever, I would expect that they will develop this theory long time before the drifting outwards discovery of the moon and the Earth.
    However, I assume that as usual, this theory had been developed just after this shocking discovery (at that time).
    If this is correct, than it proves that the science have the ability to explain only what we see.
    Let's take one more example – The drifting directin of the sun from the center of the galaxy.
    Today it is quite clear that the science believe that the sun is not drifting inwards or outwards. While, I know for sure that the sun is drifting outwards.
    So, if one day they will discover this "shocking discovery" they will rewind the current Tidal bulges theory and set some adaptation to adjust this discovery.
    The main project for the science is to have the ability to expect what they should see and get correct results.
    In most of the cases, we read about many "puzzled scientist" which get different results from their expectation.
    This proves that the science has a sever error in his current mainstream concept. The tidal bulges theory might be one item in the long error list which will be discovered one day.
    The bit about tidal bulges was hypothesised by myself, for I read about the acceleration of the Earth and extrapolated that to the other planets. I have not proven that is correct so that is why I invited someone to check it mathematically.
    Now you want to challenge us to accept the same thing is happening in some galaxies. The scientists do know that the speed of the stars in galaxies is "too high". Galaxies in the traditional Newtonian mechanics would be flying apart and that was the origin of the Dark Matter Hypothesis to account for the missing mass. Are you taking Dark Matter into consideration?
    There could easily be a slight imbalance in the matter to dark matter ratio so that galaxies either collapse or fly apart. I don't know to be honest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The scientists do know that the speed of the stars in galaxies is "toohigh". Galaxies in the traditional Newtonian mechanics would be flyingapart and that was the origin of the Dark Matter Hypothesis to account for themissing mass. Are you taking Dark Matter into consideration?
    There could easily be a slight imbalance in the matter to dark matter ratio sothat galaxies either collapse or fly apart. I don't know to be honest.

    Dark matter – There is no need for dark matter in the new theory.
    The stars aren't moving at "too high" velocity. The science believes that it is too high as currently there is no explanation for this high velocity.
    If they will read my theory with open minded they will see how simple it is.
    It seems that you are not fully aware for this theory. I have also got a remark that the title of this thread doesn't meet the subject.
    Therefore, if you wish I can open a new thread with full explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The scientists do know that the speed of the stars in galaxies is "toohigh". Galaxies in the traditional Newtonian mechanics would be flyingapart and that was the origin of the Dark Matter Hypothesis to account for themissing mass. Are you taking Dark Matter into consideration?
    There could easily be a slight imbalance in the matter to dark matter ratio sothat galaxies either collapse or fly apart. I don't know to be honest.

    Dark matter – There is no need for dark matter in the new theory.
    The stars aren't moving at "too high" velocity. The science believes that it is too high as currently there is no explanation for this high velocity.
    If they will read my theory with open minded they will see how simple it is.
    It seems that you are not fully aware for this theory. I have also got a remark that the title of this thread doesn't meet the subject.
    Therefore, if you wish I can open a new thread with full explanation.
    Just briefly here please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    The Updated Theory for the Universe

    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. Therefore, the arm is drifting outwards, while new stars are getting in from the center!!! This fully meets Newton's laws!!!
    Let's read again the valuable info from 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."
    Those new star had been formed by the new Atom which had been created at the core of the spiral galaxy!!!
    Those stars must drift outwards from the center.

    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 arm section. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!! No need for dark matter!

    G. Star age - I do believe that the science has some severe difficulties to verify the correct age of the stars. There is a reason for that. The science is based his calculation on metallicity. Based on wiki: "The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age. When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements. Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun". Hence, the science is measuring the star age based on the fundamental Idea of the Big bang. With the results of the star age they are coming back and reconfirm the Big bang theory. This is absolutely radicals and contradicts any basic common sense. It is clear that without the big bang theory, the Science could develop some other method for Star age measurements. If the science could find the correct verification for star age, they would discover that most of the Young stars are located in the center of the galaxy, while the very old stars are located at the far end of the spiral arms.

    H. New Spiral Galaxy - Each spiral mother galaxy creates new baby spiral galaxies.
    This Idea perfectly fits and explain the source of the hydrogen "bridge" between Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy.
    Neighbor galaxies may have brushed closely, astronomers find -- ScienceDaily
    "The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
    As both Andromeda and Triangulum are Spiral Galaxies, with rotational suppermassive black hole, they should have the requested power to generate Hydrogen Atoms in their core. Therefore, as they are drifting apart, they are Releasing Hydrogen and set this kind of bridge!!! Andromeda has about 1,000 Billion stars. It is the mother spiral galaxy. Triangulum has about 40 billion stars. Therefore, it is a young spiral galaxy. This Hydrogen bridge is actually the Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo - Triangulum.

    I. 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.

    J. Philosophy/Darwin approach
    There is high similarity between animals and Galaxies.
    Let's look at our universe. What do we see? (Let's ignore our close milky way galaxy). We see more and more galaxies. At different shape and size.
    So let's compare galaxies to animals.
    But first, let's try to understand how those animals had been created. It's quite clear to all of us that an animal had been born by similar animal. Therefore, life can create new life. Any living animal is a direct product of another living animal. There is no possibility for animal to be created out of a dead body!
    It could be same issue with galaxies.
    Some of the galaxies might have the ability to multiply themselves. Those galaxies will be considered as "living" galaxies.
    Thanks to Darwin we know how the life on our Earth had been evolved. We don't know how the first life had been created.
    Same issue with galaxies.
    I don't know how the first "living" galaxy had been created.
    But once it had been created, our universe had been evolved from it.
    This first living galaxy had created new living galaxies. Let's assume that each new galaxy had been ejected from the first galaxy at the orbital speed of the Solar System around the center of the Galaxy - approximately 220 km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Those new "living" galaxies also have the ability to multiply themselves. Therefore, they have created other new galaxies which had been ejected from them at any direction with similar orbital speed.
    Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is greater that the speed of light (relatively to the first galaxy).

    K. Infinite – The universe is infinite. Its age is probably also infinite.

    Highlight –
    Please look at this theory without any influence from current theory. This theory should meet whatever we see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Whatever the mechanism is that expands the Universe is it a different reason than gravitational tidal acceleration as we were describing above? OK with tidal acceleration the momentum of the inner body is transferred to the outer parts so the core slows. That loss of angular momentum is what allows for the gravitational collapse at the core. So do you accept there are also black holes at the cores of the galaxies?
    I would be reluctant to agree that since moons are accelerated by their planets and the planets are accelerated by their stars, can we say stars are accelerated by their galactic centers but I can see some of the mechanism.

    Do you accept there is also a black hole at the core of the galaxies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you accept there is also a black hole at the core of the galaxies?

    I assume that you are asking about a black hole in spiral galaxy. Why is it important?
    Would you kindly share with me your idea/theory (also about the tidal acceleration).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you accept there is also a black hole at the core of the galaxies?

    I assume that you are asking about a black hole in spiral galaxy. Why is it important?
    Would you kindly share with me your idea/theory (also about the tidal acceleration).
    To answer questions about the formation of the Universe take a lot of time and concentration, two things I can't afford to devote to the topic at the moment.
    I understand there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
    We are a spiral arm galaxy.
    Do you accept there is a black hole at the center of this galaxy?

    I have no theory on the matter except that I was convinced that in the nebulae changing into stars unless there was a loss of the angular momentum of the spinning inner matter to the outer parts it would be impossible for the star to get dense enough to go thermonuclear. Gravitational compression will only happen if there was a lack of orbital energy holding the molecules apart.

    http://www.space.com/16388-milky-way...ats-cloud.html as an example. Do you accept this?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; August 11th, 2014 at 12:44 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Are we moving toward that black hole destiny or away from it as you seem to be suggesting? In the past it has always been that we are heading down the plug hole. Two galaxies are heading toward each other - Andromeda and Milky Way.
    Can that happen in your theory?
    Andromeda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Further your questions;
    Supper massive black hole –
    Yes, there is a black hole. However, it does not eat any mass. Please see the following article as a direct reply to your example.
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/dark-star-diaries/2014/05/02/cloud-bound-for-milky-ways-black-hole-puzzles-astronomers/
    All the stars are drifting away from the Black hole.
    Nebulae changing into stars
    I do not agree with this theory. The only place for the new born star is the 5-KPC ring around the Supper massive Black hole the as follow:
    " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ringthat contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy,as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
    Andromeda and Milky Way
    Those galaxies might collide with each other in the future. If so, they will probably destroy each other. However, take it easy - not in our life time…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Further your questions;
    Supper massive black hole –
    Yes, there is a black hole. However, it does not eat any mass.
    Why do you think they call it a supermassive BH? Especially if it didn't eat up things. Don't you think there is a clue there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Why do you think they call it a supermassive BH? Especially if it didn't eat up things. Don'tyou think there is a clue there?

    Would you share with us your Idea about the BH?
    Please be aware that the science is using the words Black (Black Hole) and dark (dark mass, dark energy) for identification of unknown objects and forces that their impacts are quite clear or important to sustain the current mainstream theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Why do you think they call it a supermassive BH? Especially if it didn't eat up things. Don'tyou think there is a clue there?

    Would you share with us your Idea about the BH?
    Please be aware that the science is using the words Black (Black Hole) and dark (dark mass, dark energy) for identification of unknown objects and forces that their impacts are quite clear or important to sustain the current mainstream theory.
    i would just look it up on Google and take it from there. I have no particular theory on BHs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    i would just look it up on Google and take it from there. I have no particular theory on BHs.
    Yes, I fully agree.
    The supper massive black hole is a new mass generator. It does not eat any mass.
    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l8_p7.html
    "The dust gets thicker and thicker as we look into the center of the Galax."
    This is an indication that the supper massive BH does not eat any mass. If it was eating a mass then the dust should be thinner as we look into the center of the galaxy.
    It is also stated:" Using the highest resolution IR cameras available, astronomers have repeatedly observed the stars orbiting around Sgr A*. They have measured the orbit of a star that comes within 17 light-hours of the object in the core ofour Galaxy, which is a distance that is only a few times larger than the orbit of Pluto around the Sun."
    So, the supper massive black hole does not eat those stars that are located so close to it. Therefore, this is an indication that the black hole does not eat any mass, dust or stars.
    In contrary, it ejects new mass as follow:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
    "The Sagittarius A* radio emissions are not centered on the hole but arise from a bright spot in the region around the black hole, close to the event horizon, possibly in the accretion disc or a relativistic jet of material ejected from the disc."
    This is a clear indication that new material is ejected from the event horizion disc of the Milky Way supper massive black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Same crap, just repeated over and over.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Same crap, just repeated over and over.
    Alex
    You should be a clever person. I have actually got several good feedbacks from you (although, it was not your intention.)
    However;
    If you dont like it, would you please share with us the reasons for that.
    If you can't answer, please go somewhere else....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    Note to casual readers (I've given up responding to Dave as it is a waste of time). All of the crap Dave is spouting has been shown to be wrong, and contradicted by observations, in this and other threads, the fact is he is too dishonest (or too stupid) to take on board what others say and blindly, with an almost religious zeal continues to believe his own pseudoscientific ravings rather than learn any actual physics. This tells you exactly how seriously this nonsense should be taken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Hello PhDemon
    Please be aware that at least some of the replies from Alex include direct valuable answer to the issue which I have raised. That shows that Alex is a knowledgeable scientist, (even if currently he does not accept my theory). However, if I recall correctly, none of your replies includes any valuable knowledge. Don't you think that if you wish to show that you have some basic knowledge in science, it is expected that you should replay on the subject and explain why you disagree with my theory based on science evidences? By repeating the same words: crap, dishonest, stupid… nonsense, you actually emphasize how poor is your knowledge in science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If there's ever anyone who deserves to be ignored...
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Hello PhDemon
    Please be aware that at least some of the replies from Alex include direct valuable answer to the issue which I have raised. That shows that Alex is a knowledgeable scientist, (even if currently he does not accept my theory). However, if I recall correctly, none of your replies includes any valuable knowledge. Don't you think that if you wish to show that you have some basic knowledge inscience, it is expected that should replay on the subject and explain why you disagree with my theory based on science evidences? By repeating the same words: crap,dishonest, stupid… nonsense, you actually emphasize how poor is your knowledge in science.
    Don't forget "pseudoscientific" "ravings" "blindly", honestly I think he's succinctly summarized your position.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,363
    Dave is an ignorant bell-end, I have nothing to add to my last post except more contempt...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Steady State Theory
    By Dave Lee in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: July 21st, 2013, 04:14 AM
  2. Steady State question
    By TaoRich in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 01:18 AM
  3. Error in steady state theory
    By Eleven in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 5th, 2011, 04:26 AM
  4. Steady- State Theory.
    By Halliday in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 11th, 2008, 07:35 AM
  5. Steady State Universe
    By Mike NS in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: May 26th, 2007, 07:51 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •