why does the heavy stuff float?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />The big bang theory states that a star is created by collecting gas via gravitation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is standard stellar origin theory and has little to do with the Big Bang.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">how come the heavy stuff didn't get swept up by the outer planets?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Planets have negligible gravity compared to the Sun. Jupiter, the largest planet, has 1/1000 of the Sun's mass. So even in standard theory, the planets sweep up very little material as compared with the Sun. But Meta Science favors fission theory, in which the Sun forms first. Then planets form as the Sun spins up too much and fissions off planets.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On the other hand, if matter is created in the Sun, ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Out of what???

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... then the heavy stuff would get swept up by the inner planets while the light gases would be swept up by the outer planets.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's simpler in fission theory. When the Sun fissions a large blob of mostly hydrogen, it stays mostly hydrogen because it has enough gravity to prevent the escape of hydrogen. But when the Sun fissions a small ball of mostly hydrogen, its gravity is too weak to hold the lighter gasses, and most of the hydrogen and helium escape, leaving behind heavier elements.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I ask this because the standard theory is that the center of a galaxy is assumed to be drawing matter toward that center, and any spiral galaxy looks like it is rotating in that manner much like water flowing down a drain. BUT, The rotation pattern could also be the opposite, matter is being flung outward not unlike a fireworks spinner.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We don't know for sure which scenario is correct. Meta Science favors outflow rather than inflow or no net flow.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It seems to me that if the gravitational vacumn cleaner effect was so efficient that it could create stars, why did it stop there? Why wouldn't everything be sucked up into one big blob?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only things that are motionless with respect to the Sun can fall into it. -|Tom|-

quote:

---

(Tommy)
...the standard theory is that the center of a galaxy is assumed to be drawing matter toward that center, and any spiral galaxy looks like it is rotating in that manner much like water flowing down a drain. BUT, The rotation pattern could also be the opposite, matter is being flung outward not unlike a fireworks spinner.

---

(Tom)
We don't know for sure which scenario is correct. Meta Science favors outflow rather than inflow or no net flow.
<hr noshade size="1">


(Tommy)
Very interesting. Oort said that there is an outflow equal to one solar mass per year. Asimov said this would empty out a galaxy in a few billion years, suggesting that some sort of recycling is going on.
This is very complicated and I am on my way to work, could you meanwhile elaborate on the inflow/outflow question? I have been trying to find a definitive answer either way, maybe everyone considers it obvious that matter/stars were moving inward, but it is obvious to me that it is the opposite. The stars in a spiral galaxy are being pushed out, and not being pulled in as the BB would have it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />could you meanwhile elaborate on the inflow/outflow question? I have been trying to find a definitive answer either way<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think a definite answer is presently within our grasp. But the latest thinking stems from changes in the character of gravitation over very long ranges. That is postulated empirically by Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theory, and theoretically by Le Sage "psuhing gravity" because there must be a range (believed to be 1-2 kpc) at which gravitons collide with one another and scatter, thereby changing the inverse square character of gravity and allowing outflows by preserving linear momentum (specifically, transverse speeds) but not angular momentum (specifically, angular velocity). -|Tom|-

I don't want to butt in on this topic but every once in awhile a detail gets me wondering-anyhow; The production of heavy elements is maybe a topic for a new thread but can you say they are not being made in the sun? And if not how did they get there and everywhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

could you meanwhile elaborate on the inflow/outflow question? I have been trying to find a definitive answer either way

---

(Tom)
I don't think a definite answer is presently within our grasp. But the latest thinking stems from changes in the character of gravitation over very long ranges.

Well, it certainly is a fast way to falsify the Big Bang theory like instantaneously. Isn't it a given in BBT? They say that matter collected together and galaxies formed, right?

But if the stars in a spiral galaxy are moving outward in relation to the center, then the matter/energy is coming from that center, and not from outside the galaxy.

The implications, and the answer to the question of direction is very important. First of all, the Big Bang Theory, with it's assumption that all matter/energy was created in the past, and since has collected together to form the galaxies, would have a very difficult time trying to explain how "all" the matter/energy of a galaxy is flowing outward. For example, if they took their Black Hole hypothesis
to its logical end, their explanation would be along the lines of "The black hole is reflecting the matter/stuff off the accretion disk because of a larger inflow of matter/energy exceeding the capacity of the accretion disk to process it." They would be forced to postulate that a galaxy is the result of a Black hole sucking up too much matter/energy, and all the stars we see in a galaxy is the reflected matter.energy inflow. Problem is that there is no greater than a galaxy matter/energy inflow that we can observe. (Remember that the stars are moving out) They would have to invent a kind of transparent matter/energy that we can't detect. Better yet, a new dimension.

However, you asked "out of what?" Where is all this OUYWARD moving galactic matter/energy coming from in the center of the galaxy?

Well, to begin with the Eastern writings talk about space being full. We think of space as being empty, they think of space as being full. Moreover, modern science has a dozen different descriptions of this newly found metaspace. Hyperspace. You call it elysium. At the center of the galaxy, the plasma interacts with the elysium much like gamma rays and ions interact creating matter (is that right?) Morley B King writes about plasmoids, created in the laboratory, which are capable of creating free energy. Imagine a Sun full of these plasmoids.

Anyway, what would happen to the rotational speed anomaly if matter were moving OUT to the rotational speed of the galaxy? (Well stars would deaccelerate if they are moving outward. If they are moving inward they have to accelerate. So out means fast, in means slow. )

Hmmmm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />can you say [heavy elements] are not being made in the sun? And if not how did they get there and everywhere?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In standard theory, formation of these elements requires much higher temperatures than exist even in the Sun's core. So supernova explosions are required to produce them. -|Tom|-