|
|
Post by kaidaw on Sept 24, 2008 2:01:28 GMT
I love simple answers to questions.
The center of the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy is less than one Milky Way radius from the center of the milky way, albeit out of the plane of the disc of the Milky Way. (That means at least half of its stars are more affected by the gravitational pull of the Milky Way than the Milky Way's own stars in the long arc of its spiral arms!) It is spread out. It is being torn apart by the gravitational field of the Milky Way for the very same reason above. All of its stars that are captured will be rotating in a plane about the galactic core which is different from the original couple hundred billion stars in the MW.
Whether our star was originally in Sagittarius Dwarf or originally in the Milky Way is not known and does not matter. The orbit of Sol was perturbed, sling-shotted, and Sol is now not rotating perfectly in the galactic plane (nor is it rotating in the plane of Sagittarius Dwarf), but it is closer to the plane of the former than the plane of the latter, which proves absolutely nothing because sling-shotting can take the sun in any direction, dependent upon the incident angle, velocity, and distance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 24, 2008 2:46:23 GMT
It is mathematically inconceivable that each solar body (with its different mass, different temperature, different materials) just happens to have an electric field that precisely makes the same fractional contribution to attraction as the suggested weaker gravitational force. Further, if this electric attraction did occur, then we would be measuring a different gravitational attraction a) as a function of the energy we put into an electromagnet, and b) as a function of the sun's and earth's varying magnetic field! Think about it! But is it conceivable that, sitting inside our system in our current environment, we have found formulae for a situation that isn’t necessarily the same as that pertaining to other levels of systems? ie. maybe all stellar systems look similar to ours from inside the heliopause but once we move out into intragalactic and intergalactic space, the fundamentals are slightly different. After all, we are finding more and more things that, according to how we see things, can’t exist. From super-jovian planets that orbit their primaries in a few days to stars so large they shouldn’t be, to galaxies and clusters colliding in strange ways that seem to contradict each other. Maybe it’s just we’re looking out from a special or protected environment and trying to apply our special rules on a general level? Only worth discussing if you can overcome the problems in the topic immediately above. But, here is a clue: NO: If the Earth is rotating about the sun at a function X% electrical attraction and Y% gravitational attraction, X and Y also have to apply to Sol and other stars rotating about galactic central. But, there, compared to the solar system, outer bodies are rotating too fast. And, if you would like to make a counter-argument that this may be due to the fact that electrical forces don't obey the same inverse square law as gravity, then you have to tell me what the law is that they could obey that meets the criteria of what we observe (not in equation form, but qualitatively, as a function of distance). No, I’m wondering if the Earth/solar system isn’t running on different rules because the magnetospheres are too limited (due to solid bodies in vacuum as opposed to plasma cloud) to what might apply when there are billions of small fields that interact across all of the distances involved. If perhaps the billions emulate a field whereas the solar system, even though apparently once a field itself, is now nodes. But, note that the galaxy does not operate in lockstep. Nor do other galaxies. The rotational velocity of stars in the arms is the same, not the relative position. And this type of problem exists in galaxies that are different ages, so this cannot simply be a fluke of the particular time in the transition from not-locked to locked-step. OK, so lock-step is not valid. What kind of system would allow for a system at (say) 30Kly to move at the same speed as one at 5Kly? I can kind of get my head around how a spherical shell of DM might constrain how a galaxy forms, but I have trouble understanding how it would accelerate stellar systems to all travel at the same rate. Now a rotating field could do it I think. Goes a bit beyond what I’ve been trying to think about but if there was a rotating field it would sweep the stellar systems along with it. Could the DM sphere be rotating? OK, without studying the specific system, here is A "natural" explanation for the Bullet cluster result: A few tens of millions of years ago, one of the galaxies in the bullet cluster came "half-middling-close" to another galaxy, such that the part of that galaxy that had the least inertia (i.e., the dark matter particles were small) got pulled so that the dark matter cloud and the visible matter aggregate were largely slightly separated, but still gravitationally bound. Then this split galaxy passed near another galaxy, such that the visible portion was measurably closer to the intersecting galaxy than the dark matter cloud. The visibly portion arced around the galaxy it was intersecting, and the dark matter cloud (less attracted) was whip-sawed on past. This leaves you with one system containing two galaxies worth of visible matter and one galaxy worth of dark matter, with the second system winds up only as a dark matter cloud moving away by itself. With Abel 520, same secenario, but the second near-miss involved the dark matter cloud being closer to the intersected galaxy. Now, I need no exotic solution; I need no different rules for different parts of the universe; and I need no force except plain old gravity. Makes sense, & I appreciate it, but it doesn’t really match what the investigators of either collision think has occurred. And the more I read of them, the more apparent it is that they seem to be contradictory – the assumptions from one scenario seem to be ruled out by the other one. Sorry I did not answer ALL your questions before; I can only juggle about 8 things at a time (and need to use big print, so I can't keep the whole conversation on the screen in front of me at the same time). And, for this, I am truly bemused. Aside from the fact that this question has no meaning unless ALL of your hypotheses above are true i spite of perfectly "normal" explanations, I have never heard that ordinary average galactic densities caused redshifts. While there might be one in the vicinity of a black hole, no one has hypothesized a black hole with a large enough Schwarzchild radius to lens AND redshift a galaxy behind it; and, even if one did, there cannot be enough such beasties to explain all red-shifted galaxies. But that’s hypothesizing a body or gravity well large enough to, by itself, significantly deviate the radiation. On the other hand if it’s simply lots of tiny DM wells, or a large diffuse field, the EM interactions could affect wavelength couldn’t they? The light would come through apparently unaffected but the energy drain would redshift the photons. |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 24, 2008 2:49:16 GMT
I love simple answers to questions. The center of the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy is less than one Milky Way radius from the center of the milky way, albeit out of the plane of the disc of the Milky Way. (That means at least half of its stars are more affected by the gravitational pull of the Milky Way than the Milky Way's own stars in the long arc of its spiral arms!) It is spread out. It is being torn apart by the gravitational field of the Milky Way for the very same reason above. All of its stars that are captured will be rotating in a plane about the galactic core which is different from the original couple hundred billion stars in the MW. Whether our star was originally in Sagittarius Dwarf or originally in the Milky Way is not known and does not matter. The orbit of Sol was perturbed, sling-shotted, and Sol is now not rotating perfectly in the galactic plane (nor is it rotating in the plane of Sagittarius Dwarf), but it is closer to the plane of the former than the plane of the latter, which proves absolutely nothing because sling-shotting can take the sun in any direction, dependent upon the incident angle, velocity, and distance! Just so I understand, you're saying that the outer stars of Sagittarius galaxy will, because of their intrinsic Sag orbital motion, be approximating the orbital plane of the MW disk as they get stripped? So the capturing isn't such a large deltaV? |
|
|
|
Post by kaidaw on Sept 24, 2008 17:49:28 GMT
"Maybe all stellar systems look similar to ours from inside the heliopause but once we move out into intragalactic and intergalactic space, the fundamentals are slightly different."
Some things just can't be faked or hidden or distorted. Those include: (gravitational) attractive force, speed of light, emission spectra and the chemistry that implies, nuclear processes, lack of differences in any observable properties as a function of direction of observation and as a function of time (i.e., seeing what happened in the past because of the limitations of the speed of light).
"No, I’m wondering if the Earth/solar system isn’t running on different rules because the magnetospheres are too limited (due to solid bodies in vacuum as opposed to plasma cloud) to what might apply when there are billions of small fields that interact across all of the distances involved. If perhaps the billions emulate a field whereas the solar system, even though apparently once a field itself, is now nodes."
If that were true, then those billions making their own grand field would also affect us, but that does not happen.
"I can kind of get my head around how a spherical shell of DM might constrain how a galaxy forms, but I have trouble understanding how it would accelerate stellar systems to all travel at the same rate. "
Read this one carefully. It should help. Galaxies do not behave like solar systems (although they follow the same laws)! The big difference is this:
Our solar system has 99.8% of its mass concentrated in the central core. Things orbiting that central core are all subject to the same force, subject only to the inverse squared law.
Galaxies do not have any significant fraction of their mass in the central core!
I offer an analogy so the effects make sense. You are on an idealized Earth (everything is in round units) 12000 km in diameter. You are in NZ. In front of you is a hole 2 meters in diameter all the way through the center of the planet, with the other end of the hole coming out somewhere in Spain. You weigh 100 kilograms. Now, you descend a ladder on the side of the hole. When you have descended 3000 kilometers, you find a scale and weigh yourself. Your weight is 12.5 kilograms! Puzzled, you descend 3000 kilometers more, and find another scale. When you step on it, it does not register. You are weightless!
Now, think about what you would experience if you were a star 1000 light years from the galactic core, 10,000 light years from the galactic core, 50,000 light years from the galactic core, and 100,000 light years from the galactic core.
"Could the DM sphere be rotating?" Good question. (With the explanation above, it simply does not matter.) It could be rotating, but there are other possible explanations. We know that if it exists, the very reason we hypothesized it is that it interacts with ordinary matter gravitationally in a normal manner. But, if it does not coalesce, then there would have to be either angular momentum or an additional, short-distance repulsive force.
"Makes sense, & I appreciate it, but it doesn’t really match what the investigators of either collision think has occurred. And the more I read of them, the more apparent it is that they seem to be contradictory – the assumptions from one scenario seem to be ruled out by the other one."
...which is exactly the reason I described a variety of totally different outcomes that are possible when two two-body systems interact, with no special rules or laws that we don't know about.
"The light would come through apparently unaffected but the energy drain would redshift the photons."
Nope. You are not going to drain energy from a photon. It is a quantitized entity.
"Just so I understand, you're saying that the outer stars of Sagittarius galaxy will, because of their intrinsic Sag orbital motion, be approximating the orbital plane of the MW disk as they get stripped? So the capturing isn't such a large deltaV?"
Not at all. I'm saying when two stars get close enough to significantly interact gravitationally, the effect is that they will be slung off at a different angle from the incident angle, and often at a different velocity from the incident velocity. The fact that the sun's rotational plane is close to the MW disc plane and its velocity is close to the typical "native star" velocity this long after a close encounter suggests that the encounter was just a nudge, and that the sun is native...but it is statistically possible that the origin was in the SDEG.
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Sept 30, 2008 7:49:12 GMT
Hello, this isn't my first post, the other was cowardly taken down by FASCISTS.
1) The sun behaves as an EM source of alternating output with a period of approx 22 years.
2) Planets behaves like capacitor. Current leads the capacitor's voltage by 1/4 of a cycle.
From that base I've come to conclude that sunspots are manifestations of this voltage buildup. The latest cycle is peculiar because even though spots/voltage tries to buildup, current overcomes as we've seen with the failed spots of previous weeks. Current means enhanced flow, and hence temperature(statistical measure of concentrated anarchy) drops. The solar wind is a measure of particle flow which in turn are EM equilibriums created from waves compressing in form because of tension/voltage(standing waves, NOT CREATED BY DISPROVEN FUSION NONSENSE). We see a reduction of solar wind pressure and a corresponding increase of Cosmic rays(less dense) while we're in full current mode in our solar tesla coil setup. The reaction will come though and as we've all seen from various graphs peaks come strong on both sides. Next sunspot peak won't be like the ones we've been used to. 1/3 of the sun will darken from massive sunspots, just as it has been told. Strange things will start to happen soon. That's all folks, now enjoy the breakdown of society. Take this down too
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Sept 30, 2008 7:53:36 GMT
Tuguska was a violent ionosphere discharge, based on observations from people there. The trees in ground zero had their bark vaporized because of the skin effect(high frequencies). The meteor airburst nonsense is a theory that needs a precise altitude to explain the lack of a forest fire. That's totally contrary to what people saw then. BOGUS
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 30, 2008 8:11:03 GMT
Um... so you came here to get my thread closed? Please calm down, try to present & discuss your ideas rationally and with dignity. Indulging in, what was it you called it in your thread...? 'smack talk' with others doesn't help get your ideas talked about in any reasonable fashion.
Calling forum members, moderators & admins fascist and using other aggressive language isn't a way to get people to listen and participate.
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Sept 30, 2008 8:18:14 GMT
Um... so you came here to get my thread closed? Please calm down, try to present & discuss your ideas rationally and with dignity. You were the only rational poster on my thread. Try and find it now. Then tell me it's all a space time paradox and it never existed. It's called standing up against mental fascism |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 30, 2008 8:19:59 GMT
Some questions - if the Sun is an AC source, what is the output? How does it alternate?
If planets are capacitors, how do they discharge and to where? Or is it one long buildup of charge?
Where has fusion been disproved?
Why does Tunguska as an airburst event need a precise altitude? Do you have more than one eyewitness account & who is the one you quoted in yoru thread? My memory of reading about Tunguska is that while many people saw it crossing the sky, nobody was close enough to see the rather remote epicentre.
If Tunguska was a discharge event, how come we have no evidence of any others?
If you wish to converse, try answering some of these. If people come along with agendas that show a pre-decided bias or prejudice, try to be polite or ignore them - if they can't get a rise out of you they will go away but only after showing other people who they truly are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 30, 2008 8:24:39 GMT
You were the only rational poster on my thread. Try and find it now. Then tell me it's all a space time paradox and it never existed. It's called standing up against mental fascism Well, from what I saw there was me and one other...  but I will take the compliment anyway. I've been a moderator - when a thread degenerates into a slanging match it gets closed. I don't recall ever deleting one but on that forum we had an area not visible to members to which we moved such things so we had eveidence for possible future disputes. Time for deep breaths, calm of mind, light of thought, then decide if you really want to be here. If so, try to tone things down & remember we prefer evidence to rhetoric and epithets. |
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Sept 30, 2008 8:30:09 GMT
Some questions - if the Sun is an AC source, what is the output? How does it alternate? If planets are capacitors, how do they discharge and to where? Or is it one long buildup of charge? Output is cosmic/galactic/solar rays. High frequency current. It alternates because of the planetary capacitor resistance as per the capacitor in AC formulas. Fusion theory is not consistent with data from solar observation. Don't ask me go read my thread. It was all nicely discussed between me and that npsguy. That was the event of the century. I suspect Tesla caused it with his experiments. Soon we'll start seeing more of them as we overcome the fear of high powered EM. My only true agenda is freedom of speech and mine was taken away. I feel furious and justified. You posted yesterday, do you remember? |
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Sept 30, 2008 8:34:41 GMT
Try and find the thread. I didn't insult anyone so I'd like it back and locked. No prob with that.
What evidence? IT WAS DELETED
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 30, 2008 8:35:18 GMT
Yes I remember.
Is there a match between Tesla's experiemtns and Tunguska time-wise? I thought Tesla's power braodcast tower blew up before completion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 30, 2008 8:37:35 GMT
Try and find the thread. I didn't insult anyone so I'd like it back and locked. No prob with that. What evidence? IT WAS DELETED Calmly send a PM to a moderator - I'm just a member. As for evidence, you can search, find & link. You have the internet at your service & you have obviously spent some time developing your ideas. Show us why they're more than random speculations. |
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Sept 30, 2008 8:37:43 GMT
How do you feel about the mods then? Do you believe in freedom of speech? No it wasn't, it was taken down after 1910. It got used and there are records of it lighting up the sky |
|
but I will take the compliment anyway.