Electromagnetic explanation of universe shot down

This forum contains threads from main General Chat forum older than 3 months.

Moderator: thunderchero

User avatar
ketteringdave
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am

Post by ketteringdave » Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:07 pm

jaruler wrote:hey i was just looking at how the galaxy can keep its spiral formation. if the inner was traveling faster and the outer slower then you will get a formation like an everyday solar system will you not? where way tou say about ours is true. but to keep the effect and formation of a spiral then the outer must travel faster then the inner parts, they must to keep formation. when i was in the TA and being drilled all day it is the sam effect the outer portion was be faster the the central part just to keep formation.

the spiral is KEPT spiral by this method. if we use your method there would be no spiral formation as all stars will be in random orbits from the centre of the galaxy which there are some out there like that. maybe those we see woth spiral are new born and not yet cycled round enough the centre to lose its shape?
Who says the galaxy keeps the same spiral shape? I would suggest that the only reason the galaxy is not more random is that it simply hasn't had enough time. The planets is our solar system have orbited the Sun billions of times, while the Sun may have only circled the center of the galaxy 53 times (using the larger estimates for the age of the Milky Way and the revolution period of the Sun).
jaruler wrote:by no means do i think i am right, its not my view on it. i have seen and heard of scientists invest there time and energy into thiongs only to be proved wrong later. nothing is really exact and what i think they observed over 16 years without watching footage myself is prob a slight movement but it INDICATED that many stars that they had been watching where orbiting around something. they did not say they has witnessed a full orbit.
the original post wrote:The team, who found that one particular star made a full orbit of the black hole in the 16 year study, now hope to use even more powerful telescopes to further test Einstein's theories.
jaruler wrote:i understand that the spiral fomation makes the inner parts orbit faster. that i am not arguing. what i am saying is that the outer must be as fast or faster. just look at the ground they have to cover to keep in this spiral formation.
You agree that the inner parts orbit faster, but still claim the outer parts orbit faster?
jaruler wrote:http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0401c.html

link to prove 67k mph orbit from nasa!

regards
Your figure of 67,000 mph is the same as my figure of 30 km/s. On this point at least, we're talking about the same thing.

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:29 pm

ketteringdave wrote:
jaruler wrote:the spiral is KEPT spiral by this method. if we use your method there would be no spiral formation as all stars will be in random orbits from the centre of the galaxy which there are some out there like that. maybe those we see with spiral are new born and not yet cycled round enough the centre to lose its shape?
Who says the galaxy keeps the same spiral shape? I would suggest that the only reason the galaxy is not more random is that it simply hasn't had enough time. The planets is our solar system have orbited the Sun billions of times, while the Sun may have only circled the center of the galaxy 53 times (using the larger estimates for the age of the Milky Way and the revolution period of the Sun).

please read above
jaruler wrote:by no means do i think i am right, its not my view on it. i have seen and heard of scientists invest there time and energy into thiongs only to be proved wrong later. nothing is really exact and what i think they observed over 16 years without watching footage myself is prob a slight movement but it INDICATED that many stars that they had been watching where orbiting around something. they did not say they has witnessed a full orbit.
the original post wrote:The team, who found that one particular star made a full orbit of the black hole in the 16 year study, now hope to use even more powerful telescopes to further test Einstein's theories.
Ok my sorry there for not reading or remembering fully.
jaruler wrote:i understand that the spiral fomation makes the inner parts orbit faster. that i am not arguing. what i am saying is that the outer must be as fast or faster. just look at the ground they have to cover to keep in this spiral formation.
You agree that the inner parts orbit faster, but still claim the outer parts orbit faster?

= just bacause something "orbits" faster (makes an orbit before another) does not make it faster, I had said the other "outer" had further ground to cover so that it would make sense it would have to travel faster to try and keep the spiral shape and make an orbit.
jaruler wrote:http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0401c.html

link to prove 67k mph orbit from nasa!

regards
Your figure of 67,000 mph is the same as my figure of 30 km/s. On this point at least, we're talking about the same thing.


but someone mentioned my figures were off or wrong i believe hence why i provided a link.

al in all the universe is a big complicated mystery that many will have there own conclusions on. so i accept that many will have there own opinion and i also accept i could be very wrong. all i tried was to ask a few questions and put a theory to what was said

User avatar
jonboylondon
Captain
Captain
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: the greatest city in the world....
Contact:

Post by jonboylondon » Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:15 pm

"The pioneer of studies of the rotation of the Galaxy and the formation of the spiral arms was Bertil Lindblad in 1925. He realised that the idea of stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape was untenable due to the "winding dilemma". Since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the centre of the galaxy, a radial arm (like a spoke) would quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. The arm would, after a few galactic rotations, become increasingly curved and wind around the galaxy ever tighter. This is called the winding problem. Or, the stars on the outermost edge of the galaxy would have to move faster than those near the center, as the galaxy rotates. Neither behaviour is observed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxies

:wink:

you gotta love the curveballs the galaxy throws........ :roll:

JBL
Monks: Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
[bonk!]

Majicman182
Cadet 2nd Year
Cadet 2nd Year
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:00 am

hmmm Indeed...

Post by Majicman182 » Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:16 am

AHHHH THE SUN AND ITS BLACK HOLEZ!! AHHH WHYYY!! KHANNN!!!

User avatar
cleantoe
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:00 am

Post by cleantoe » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:55 am

Yeah I saw that wikipage. I guess I do not know enough about physics to really continue this discussion, thus my silence.

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:03 pm

and mine lol.

but here is a nother argument :P

the universe is flat!!

haha

User avatar
jonboylondon
Captain
Captain
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: the greatest city in the world....
Contact:

Post by jonboylondon » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:15 am

cleantoe wrote:Yeah I saw that wikipage. I guess I do not know enough about physics to really continue this discussion....
Before you go though might I add as well as the Density Wave and Shock Wave theorys to the reason for Spiral Galaxies...... a third option :) !

If you use super-computing capabilities to apply the Maxwell-Lorentz equations (the basic laws governing the forces and interactions of electric and magnetic fields) to huge ensembles of charged particles, (called PIC - Particle In Cell simulation) so you supersize to a galactic scale so to speak you get this shape....


Source: "Evolution of Colliding Plasmas" - A. Peratt, J. Green, and D. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters, 44, pp. 1767-1770, 1980

:wink:
Monks: Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
[bonk!]

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Post by Peter1981 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:30 am

I would remind everyone that perhaps quantum mechanics while a very VERY good model of the universe may turn out to be over simplistic. As Newtonian phyics was proved local (in an infintesimal locus way) by Einstine and Edington, who knows what new discvery will be uncovered in the decades and certuries ahead?

User avatar
SpiN
Cadet 2nd Year
Cadet 2nd Year
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am

Post by SpiN » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm

If you use super-computing capabilities to apply the Maxwell-Lorentz equations (the basic laws governing the forces and interactions of electric and magnetic fields) to huge ensembles of charged particles, (called PIC - Particle In Cell simulation) so you supersize to a galactic scale so to speak you get this shape....
A galaxy is made of stars (not charged) and gas. This gas (hidrogen and helium) is mainly neutral charged, exept for a 1% (or less) of the hidrogen. So this simulations don't apply for galaxy formation.

User avatar
jonboylondon
Captain
Captain
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: the greatest city in the world....
Contact:

Post by jonboylondon » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:34 pm

SpiN wrote:
If you use super-computing capabilities to apply the Maxwell-Lorentz equations (the basic laws governing the forces and interactions of electric and magnetic fields) to huge ensembles of charged particles, (called PIC - Particle In Cell simulation) so you supersize to a galactic scale so to speak you get this shape....
A galaxy is made of stars (not charged) and gas. This gas (hidrogen and helium) is mainly neutral charged, exept for a 1% (or less) of the hidrogen. So this simulations don't apply for galaxy formation.

8O 8O 8O 8O 8O

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... ep99_1.htm

"Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from." Source: Nasa "Cosmicopia" http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_cr.html#plasma

Stars are nothing but huge balls of plasma....They all are charged!!!! The Sun is charged, Earth is charged, The Moon is charged... We have measured this and we have even found the Earth is in a direct circuit with the Sun. I provided this previously in another post. They all have Heliospheres caused by this charge!!!!

The space between stars is (interslellar medium) made of plasma.... Source: "Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics" - A M Soward 2005 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... ADRDGXo-jQ

"Plasma:

A state of matter characterized by unbound negative electrons and positive ions that may conduct electrical current. Plasma is often called the fourth state of matter, along with the other three: solids, liquids, and gases. It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles."
Source: "Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth" by National Research Council (U.S.), Published 2004 National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ ... 6&page=188

In fact all these sorces confirm this as it is common knowledge and scientific fact!!:

"The Solar System" edited by Thérèse Encrenaz, Published 2004 Springer Page 1
"Introduction to Plasma Physics: With Space and Laboratory Applications", by Donald A. Gurnett, Published 2005 Cambridge University Press Page 2
"Space charge modes in the magnetized discharge with dust", New Vistas in Dusty Plasmas: Fourth International Conference on the Physics of Dusty Plasmas. Cramer, N. F.; Vladimirov, S. V., AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 799, pp. 561-564 (2005)
"Plasma Physics: Proceedings of the 1997 Latin American Workshop : VII LAWPP 97", by Julio Puerta, Pablo Martín, Published 1999 Springer Page 57
"Analytical and Numerical Methods for Wave Propagation in Fluid Media" By Krzysztof. Murawski, Published 2002 World Scientific, Page 14
"Plasma Physics: Basic Theory with Fusion Applications", by Masashiro Wakatani, KyÃ…
Monks: Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
[bonk!]

User avatar
TurboC
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:00 am

Post by TurboC » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:14 am

I've seen the "Electric Universe" stuff, some of it is interesting, some questionable. Anyway, I don't see a lot of concrete science in this thread. Let's examine some definite facts. The article claims:

"The team, who found that one particular star made a full orbit of the black hole in the 16 year study, now hope to use even more powerful telescopes to further test Einstein's theories. "

OK. So they seem to have observed a star with an orbit of 16 years. Let's examine the feasibility without any bias. We do know that from any reference frame (say ours), objects with mass cannot exceed the speed of light. (Oh the irony of that statement on a Star Trek forum.) That would place the upper limit of this star's orbital path as 16 light-years (max.) And I'd have to imagine getting THAT close to lightspeed would cause weird and obvious effects on the stars shape and behavior, because of the high Lorentz factor, so let's say 15 light-years absolute max. C = 2*pi*r, so maximum orbital radius = 2.39 light-years.

It seems reasonable that a star would be all right at a distance of 2 light-years from a black hole. Black holes don't have some special supernatural rip-you-apart powers other than their inherent gravity, and x-ray bursts which wouldn't really hurt a star. Now, they claim the central black hole has 4 million solar masses. Let's calculate the acceleration of gravity of 4 million solar masses (4 * 10^6 * 2 * 10^30 kg) at a distance of 2 light years:

ag = G*m/r^2 = (6.67 * 10^-11)(8*10^36)/(2 * 9.46 * 10^15 m)^2 = 1.49*10^-6 m/s^2, or less than 1/6,500,000 as much as Earth's gravity. As another comparison, it would be about 7 times as large as Jupiter's gravitational effect on our sun.

So in conclusion, a 16-year orbit star isn't in danger of being ripped apart or swallowed. Even if there are more solar masses than they anticipated, and even if it's closer than I said, it seems fine. After all, many stars are actually binary pairs, orbiting each other a lot more often than 16 years, and exerting a lot more mutual gravitational effect, without any problems.

The real question is - why can't they show us these orbits? I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what I can see.

Edit -- I realized there's another calculation possible, using centripetal force (and/or Kepler or orbital equations). If we know the orbital time and what they claim as the central mass, we can calculate the resulting orbital radius. ag = ac, so Gm/r^2 = v^2/r. v = distance/time = orbital circumference / orbital period = 2*pi*r / T, so:

Gm/r^2 = (2*pi*r / T)^2 / r

Gm/r^2 = 4*pi^2*r / T^2

r = (Gm * T^2 / 4*pi^2)^(1/3)
r = (6.67e-11 * 8*10^36 * 2.5e17 / 39.478)^1/3
r = 1.5 * 10^14m = .0159 ly.

Well, that's a lot closer than the max of 2.39 ly. And for the record, then, orbital speed v = .0062 c

OK then, what's the gravitational acceleration of 4 million suns at a distance of .0159 ly?

ag = Gm/r^2 = .0237 m/s^2, or 1 / 414th of Earth's gravity. The gravity at the surface of the star would be 11.5 thousand times stronger than this from the star itself, so again, still no problems with being ripped apart.

User avatar
kingy
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:00 am
Location: GMT -0+

Post by kingy » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:23 am

@ jbl's last post,

my god thought i had know a bit about Physics, but that just has blow the mind with idea's.nice links, have made for long hard read, as u can see by how long it taken to post back about it, nice one for posting them


glad to know you not just a funny man,
you got :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

User avatar
jonboylondon
Captain
Captain
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: the greatest city in the world....
Contact:

Post by jonboylondon » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:55 am

kingy wrote:@ jbl's last post,

my god thought i had know a bit about Physics, but that just has blow the mind with idea's.nice links, have made for long hard read, as u can see by how long it taken to post back about it, nice one for posting them


glad to know you not just a funny man,
you got :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:
Kingy (and everyone else as well!!!) - why not check out this website and its talks called T.E.D [Technology,Entertainment,Design] http://www.ted.com/index.php/pages/view/id/5 where some of the worlds smartest get invited to give talks.....! :wink:

In the catagory of most jaw dropping I reccommend-

Blaise Aguera - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/blai ... synth.html
Jeff Han - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jeff ... creen.html
Susan Savage - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susa ... write.html
David Bolinsky - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/davi ... _cell.html

In the catagory of most fascinating I recommend -
Briane Greene - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bria ... heory.html
Richard Dawkins - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/rich ... verse.html

In the catagory of funniest I recommend -

Yossi Vardi - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/yoss ... rming.html
Ze Frank - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ze_f ... omedy.html
John Hodgeman - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/john ... ssion.html

There are so many more talks but of these listed Susan Savage, Yossi Vardi and Richard Dawkins talks are fantastic and really made me think after watching them!!! BEWARE LOCAL WARMING!!!!!!! :D :D

JBL
Monks: Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
[bonk!]

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:34 pm

turbo i am sorry but not much of that made sense to me.

are you a prof of astro physics or somthing?

now i see myself as not dim but no scientist either but your workings have just dumfounded me :(

think i will go back to school

User avatar
TurboC
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:00 am

Post by TurboC » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:25 pm

The important part was at the end -- the star they mentioned orbiting the black hole can be calculated to have the following orbital characteristics (approximately)

Orbital radius = .0159 light years
Orbital velocity = 0.62% of light speed
Acceleration of gravity from black hole = 1 / 414th of earth's gravity

The point being that even though, from here, it seems like the star "must be too close" to the massive black hole, .0159 light years away is still a safe distance away for a star.

And as yet another comparison - right now, our sun is pulling on YOU 2.5 times harder (1/168th g) than the black hole would be pulling on this star.

Post Reply

Return to “General Chat Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users