Galactic rotation and the speed of light....

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />The spiral of a galaxy seems to show the tips of the "arms" curving backward relative to the motion of he body as a whole. If one were to start with a galaxy that was not spinning, with "arms" extended straight out, and then began to spin it, how much delay from the axis, to the extents, would there be, at the speed of light, for that motion? How much curvature would that cause even at the speed of light? Do we see that much? Or do we see more? Do we see less?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A typical galaxy has spiral arms extending out perhaps about 60,000 light-years, and spins once every few hundred million years. So the speed of light is practically "instantaneous" relative to the speed of galaxy rotation.

Now comes the big wrinkle. Galaxy spin is not the primary factor in forming spiral arms in standard models because, if it were, the arms would wind up and wrap many times around the galaxy. So the standard model says arms are caused by "density waves" in which stars zipping around the galaxy spend longer times in the arms (presumably because of gravitational forces), then move on, so that the arms are just an illusion and are constantly changing their star content.

By contrast, in the Meta Model, star formation occurs mainly in the galactic center regions. Because the law of gravity changes over such large distances, stars are not bound to the galaxy, but instead spiral away and escape into intergalactic space. The "bar"-shape of the center determines where most stars will escape from the center, which sets up the outward spiral paths we see as arms. -|Tom|-

It is well and good for models to have stars form in that way but what about the real way stars form? Is there any data that indicates how real stars form? It seems to me real stars would form in large clusters from clouds and then assemble into the disk formation. It also seems to me there is data indicating stars do form in clouds but the people who are observing the clouds are onder the influence of models that effect their reporting so how reliable is this view? Maybe the question of what is seen depends on who does the looking more than really knowing anything about what is being looked at.

Thank you for better wording what I was trying to say Tom!

I was definitely trying to get at the idea that the "arms" would end up wrapped up around the core, perhaps even very tightly(collapse even?) in standard models. Essentially it just doesn't seem to make sense that the angular momentum remains at the levels it does if the speed of light is absolute. Maybe I'm not math-savvy enough to get why it should, but intuitively it just doesn't seem to make sense.

I do wonder, however, about the "escape" concept. Is the assertion here that at some point the mass reaches the outer edge of the galactic disk and the momentum of the mass exceeds the force of the gravity holding it to the galaxy cluster? That far out, Meta Model presumably is saying that the core of the galaxy no longer has any direct pull on the mass, but instead the core pulls on mass within it's own range, and that in turn pulls on mass further out, and so on until eventually the "pull"(yeah I know it's push, but standard terminology is hard to let go of) isn't sufficient to keep the body attached? Wouldn't this mean, however, that there would be stars floating alone in the void between galaxies, still burning brightly? Is there such a thing? If not, why? Where does all that mass go? You seem to not believe in Dark Matter(for good reasons too), but all that escaped material would almost beg to be described as such....?

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />Is the assertion here that at some point the mass reaches the outer edge of the galactic disk...?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of the amazing things about galaxies is that they have no well-defined edge. The deeper we look, the more we see of the ever-fainter outer parts of galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy has been traced out to several degrees in some deep images!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That far out, Meta Model presumably is saying that the core of the galaxy no longer has any direct pull on the mass, but instead the core pulls on mass within it's own range, and that in turn pulls on mass further out, and so on until eventually the "pull" ... isn't sufficient to keep the body attached?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Correct.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wouldn't this mean, however, that there would be stars floating alone in the void between galaxies, still burning brightly? Is there such a thing?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, and yes. One of the recent surprises in galactic astronomy is loner stars drifting about in intergalactic space. But they are hard to identify, so we don't yet have good statistics on them. -|Tom|-

Ah, this is very informative. Thank you for taking the time to answer all this!

With no clear edges, is it even possible to say that at some point, zoom in far enough, there must be one atom that is the furthest from the center of the galaxy that is part of it, and that defines the absolute edge? Or is it possible that galaxies, as we see them, really just represent dense pockets in a sea of mass, and that all galaxies are really connected in the sense that they float in the same sea, so to speak? I'm not sure I'm communicating this very well.... It's like the sea. When it's calm we see just a flat, boring surface, but if an iceburg, or an island breaks up it's surface, we notice that, but defining the absolute edge between either and the ocean itself is way more complicated than it looks.... Could the "sea" galaxies float through be the elysium? Again, I'm not sure I'm communicating this very clearly, but hopefully you know what I'm saying...

The loner stars are fascinating because it makes me wonder about the interrelation of mass in the universe. Do all these lost stars eventually work their way back into related mass structures(new galaxies)? Do they get gobbled up by some supermassive objects(what conventional scientists swear is a black hole singularity), and then at some point the supermass reaches a critical mass and blows up, forming new galaxies? I realize it's almost impossible to say with the limited data available. It would seem though that if entropy does exist, then there would have to be some sort of rebirth mechanism for a continuous universe based in "deep reality" physics.

I probably should go to school for all this. I think I might get really frustrated with college though. If I had to hear about Steven Hawking's theories ad nauseum, I would probably get an F for my attitude problems.

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />Or is it possible that galaxies, as we see them, really just represent dense pockets in a sea of mass, and that all galaxies are really connected in the sense that they float in the same sea, so to speak?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think that is likely to turn out to be about right, with the "sea" being elysium, as you suggested.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do all these lost stars eventually work their way back into related mass structures(new galaxies)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Most eventually explode and enrich the intergalactic medium. But either way, they are material for future galaxy formation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if entropy does exist, then there would have to be some sort of rebirth mechanism for a continuous universe based in "deep reality" physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, galaxies are continually being born and dying. Arp has an interesting model tying various astrophysicaal objects into an evolutionary sequence.

As for entropy, in MM, it is a function of the active force. For example, entropy (e.g., disorder) always increases for electromagnetic-type forces unless work is done to reverse it. But for gravity, entropy always decreases unless work (such as a supernova) is done to reverse it.

Presumably, in an infinite, eternal universe with an infinite number of fundamental forces, entropy is conserved.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I probably should go to school for all this. I think I might get really frustrated with college though. If I had to hear about Steven Hawking's theories ad nauseum, I would probably get an F for my attitude problems.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[] -|Tom|-