Why Spiral Galaxies?

[Eclogite]

I have no specific knowledge of electromagnetic fields working at this scale, but I'd think it would be a bit unlikely for them to work at galactic distances...

Unless of course you are a supporter of plasma cosmology.:)

Plasma Cosmology .net

[Qfwfq]

This is actually the crux of the issue at hand: Orbital mechanics dictates that the period of orbit is proportional to the axes of the ellipse of the orbit. What you see in Pluto is that the inner planets orbit many *times* faster, and any "arms" that you trace across the planets would wind up incredibly fast wouldn't they?

But the mass distribution is totally different in the case of a galaxy. Kepler's laws result from an inverse square law.

[CraigD]

But the mass distribution is totally different in the case of a galaxy. Kepler's laws result from an inverse square law.

True. Analogies between the motion of bodies around the Sun and stars in a galaxy are inexact.

 

The motion of stars in a galaxy is complicated and hard to describe, however, so inexact analogies are, IMHO, helpful. The only way I know to describe it realistically is using approximate computer simulations.

 

The difference in complexity between solar system and galaxy dynamics is illustrated, I think, by the fact that a 16th fortune teller to an emperor (Keppler) was able to work out an excellent model of the former without understanding either the inverse square law of gravity, or the calculus (which wouldn’t be invented for another century), while the latter remains a modeling challenge for professional astrophysicists, and an occasional cause of confusion for enthusiasts like myself.

[WillieB]

Before adding this post I would once again thank all participants for what has been, to me a very interesting discussion. But I had hoped that my last post may have awakened some curiosity and that it would have prompted a response. Not having heard, I will continue expounding on my thought that the “winding problem” could arise due to interference between the gravitational fields and the magnetic fields surrounding galaxies. Again, I am using the principles from The Incremental Universe. If the following doesn’t grab you go to that site and you will see the logic.

 

As magnetic fields will tend to project polarizations of the increments in such a manner that the average orientations of their flow vectors will diverge from vectors parallel to the average path of that which the increments follow through space and thus the accelerative force that their orbiting paired bundles exert will be “spread out,” it will no longer be concentrated on a vector that is precisely opposite that of the path of the increments. (This is not true on a line passing through both poles but it is most definitely true in areas adjacent to the magnet and between the poles. See Figure 14, Item 2, part C at The Incremental Universe.) This will result in a reduction of gravitational forces. Thus, the areas within the stronger magnetic field will feel a reduced gravitational attraction and, as the magnetic field weakens with distance the gravitational forces will approach those predicted by Newton. Hence those areas of the galaxy closer to the center will require a reduced velocity to maintain their orbits and, as the distance from the center increases, the velocity will more nearly correspond to Newton’s Law and will increase. The winding problem is solved without the need to invent density waves.

 

I am sure that the first question that occurs is “Why hasn’t this phenomena been detected in our space program?” There are many possible explanations. The Earth’s magnetic field is relatively weak thereby diminishing this effect. There are other factors that influence orbital characteristics, not the least of which is atmospheric resistance and solar radiation. I feel certain that these factors are not easily calculated and their effects have most probably been determined through observation and experimentation. In other words, the countering of gravity by magnetic fields could easily have gone undetected.

 

Mark one more area in which The Incremental Universe offers a possible explanation of a previously inexplicable phenomenon.

 

My best to All, WillieB

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at a hurricane the same basic type of affect is at work. nature tends to recycle; good for her. The fastest speeds are at the center of the hurricane. The arms lag behind with the core winding up faster and faster. In the case of a hurricane, it is the low pressure center that is moving the fastest, with extreme low pressure being generated at the center and increasing as we move toward the arms.

 

What fundamentally causes this low pressure center is the condensation of water. That is why low pressure almost always has clouds and usually rain. In the case of hurricanes, extreme rain. High pressure is usually fair weather with atmospheric water having a more difficult time forming cloud cover, but often a few fair weather clouds.

 

When water is evaporated and dissolves into the atmosphere it becomes part of the vapor space and exerts a partial pressure. This can displace gases due to the extra pressure of the water. So we get a fair weather breeze due to the displacement. When the water condenses into clouds and rain, the partial pressure of the water decreases and the atmopheric pressure lowers. The result is a low pressure system if it is organized into a cyclone of sorts.

 

The question for spiral galaxies is what is "condensing", sort of like a water and rain analogy, lowering the pressure in the core of the galaxy. For one thing there is fusion. For example, one atom of oxygen takes up less space than eight atoms of deuterium. That will lower pressure. A black hole in the center would also be a condenser of space lowering the galaxtic vapor pressure (so to speak).

 

One other thing that cyclones on the earth and spiral galaxies have in common, both use the power of hydrogen, with water using hydrogen bonding and stars using hydrogen fusion.

[Erasmus00]

What fundamentally causes this low pressure center is the condensation of water. That is why low pressure almost always has clouds and usually rain. In the case of hurricanes, extreme rain. High pressure is usually fair weather with atmospheric water having a more difficult time forming cloud cover, but often a few fair weather clouds....

 

This is wildly off topic, but I believe you are flipping cause and effect.

 

Water evaporates or condenses because of various air pressures. The evaporation does not CAUSE the high and low pressure areas. In a low pressure area, the air rises and expands. This causes it to cool off and water condenses out forming rain and clouds.

 

In a high pressure area, the relativiely "dry" air is sinking and little air is returning upward and we don't have the flow of evaporation. This sinking air warms as it falls which further inhibits cloud formation.

 

Hence, the various pressures CAUSE the various changes in the water cycle, and not visa versa. If you look at your conjecture (vapor pressure of water CAUSES the high/ low pressure area) you can quickly see it can't work by comparing the relative water vapor pressure to the partial pressure of Nitrogen in the atmosphere. The vapor pressure is insignificant.

 

Further (and to move back into topic) the cause of the spiraling of a hurricane is very different from the cause of the spiraling of a galaxy. The hurrican spirals due to the rotation of the Earth. The coriolis effect deflects air as it tries to flow from high to low pressure areas.

 

And, while you can argue that hydrogen powers the hurricane it doesn't power the hurricane in the manner you suggest. The "power" of the hurricane comes from the entire non-equilibrium system that is the ocean current and air currents. It is the sun and the Earth's rotation that feed this system. Hence, you could argue hydrogen fusion powers the hurricane, as the sun is the primary power input.

-Will

[LaurieAG]

And, while you can argue that hydrogen powers the hurricane it doesn't power the hurricane in the manner you suggest. The "power" of the hurricane comes from the entire non-equilibrium system that is the ocean current and air currents. It is the sun and the Earth's rotation that feed this system. -Will

 

While Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones (southern hemisphere) usually generate over oceans and obtain their strength by gathering warm moisture, the best examples are usually seen when they sustain themselves over the land.

 

Several years ago a cyclone developed in the Indian ocean, crossed the coast of Western Australia, then proceeded to spend almost a week and a half, travelling from west to east and crossing 2/3 of the Australian continent.

 

As these weather systems usually turn into rain depressions when they cross land, exceptions to this general rule are interesting. In this case the cyclone followed a path along a line that clearly divided the hot northern air from the colder southen air.

 

If there was any validity in this comparison for spiral galaxies it would also be like the vortex of a Tornado which is formed by a similar heat differential. If this were the case for spiral galaxies we would expect to see similar effects from similar causes.

[WillieB]

How did we ever gravitate from spiral galaxies to meteorology? Let's get back on topic! Does anyone dispute the interference between gravitational fields and magnetic fields??

[CraigD]

Does anyone dispute the interference between gravitational fields and magnetic fields??

I believe that photons carry magnetic force, and, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by many experiments, are subject to gravity (whatever gravity may, fundamentally, be). Charged particles interact with both photons of magnetic force and gravity. So, in a sense, gravitational fields “interfere” with magnetic fields, and many particles are “interfered with” by both gravitational fields.

 

However, I don’t believe this is the question WillieB is asking. Willie, can you put the question in the form of a hypothetical prediction?

[WillieB]

CraigD,

 

In post 21 I had postulated and briefly explained that, under the conditions presumed by the IU (Incremental Universe), a magnetic field will disrupt or weaken a gravitational field. I then postulated that such a weakening could explain how these conditions would be a perfect explanation for the lack of the dissipation (or winding up) of the spiral arms of most galaxies. Of course all of this was in an attempt to generate enough interest in my paper to actually study it to the point that they could appreciate its basic logic. I obviously have not yet succeded in that goal.

 

All the Best,

 

WillieB

[CraigD]

In post 21 I had postulated and briefly explained that, under the conditions presumed by the IU (Incremental Universe), a magnetic field will disrupt or weaken a gravitational field.

This seems to me a good hypothesis, a not too difficult to experimentally test via a variation on the Cavendish experiment, using a powerful magnet to create a strong magnetic field between the spheres. Though not beyond the financial or technical means of a hobbyist (or, I infer from many internet search hits, student science fair contestants), I’d recommend enlisting the aid of a college or university (or, if you’re fortunate enough to have access to one, a really good high school). Every school I’ve attended since high school that had a science department has conducted both Cavendish torsion beam and high-strength magnetic field (eg: Hall effect) experiments as part of ordinary undergraduate physics lab classes, so have both the equipment and the knowledge to conduct an experiment combining the two.

 

I expect the experiment would be complicated by the need to prevent the spheres from being attracted by the unintentional low-strength magnetic fields outside of the high-strength field intentionally placed between. Even non-ferromagnetic material (eg: glass or high-density plastic) experience a small magnetic force, and the force of gravity between such small masses is very small. These and other problems don’t, however, seem insurmountable.

 

It would be very helpful in designing such an experiment to have at least a rough estimate of the hypothesized effect – how much weakening of gravity is expected for a particular magnetic field strength and volume

I then postulated that such a weakening could explain how these conditions would be a perfect explanation for the lack of the dissipation (or winding up) of the spiral arms of most galaxies.

As has been much cited and discussed in this thread, based on a large amount of high-resolution spectroscopic study of stars in galaxies, the “winding dilemma/problem” has been considered solved since the 1920s. The dilemma is based on the faulty assumption that galaxies begin as thin bars of stars (not to be confused with the observed bar shapes actually observed in galaxies) orbiting a common center in near circles at a much lower velocity than is now observed. Modern measurements of the velocity of individual stars in galaxies has made this “dilemma” vanish, showing that the observed spiral structures show stars in much faster than once assumed, highly elliptic orbits.

Of course all of this was in an attempt to generate enough interest in my paper to actually study it to the point that they could appreciate its basic logic. I obviously have not yet succeded in that goal.

On my part, my forgetfulness about your work is due to poor memory and lack of note-taking. However, I think your idea may continue to be weakly appreciated, because it strongly contradicts a very well confirmed theory concerning known forces – the standard model’s prediction that bosons don’t interact with one another – and a popular theoretical suspicion that gravity, though currently not explained by the standard model, will eventually prove, if not to actually be a boson (the graviton), than at least to behave like one in this regard. For an idea to overturn this reasonable belief, it needs to either have compellingly beautiful theoretical mathematical formalism, or tantalizing experimental confirmation. In the case of your idea, WillyB, I think it would be more effective to pursue experimental data than theoretical formalism because – no offense to experimentalists – experiments are easy than formal theory.

[WillieB]

CraigD,

 

I do appreciate your participation on this thread. Each and every one of your posts have been both informative and phrased with the very best of good will. In response to your very good suggestions, I am severely limited in mathematical ability. My goal always has been to interest someone with such an ability to adopt the IU and reinforce its acceptability to the scientific community. I am not even looking for credit for conceiving it but I would dearly love to be aware that its concepts are being pursued.

 

I do have one question that I feel certain that you can help clarify ---- If the graviton does exist as a boson (a particle), in view of the restriction to a maximum velocity of c (the speed of light) which is imposed by the Special Theory, then how can we account for the infinite speed of transmission of gravitational forces? While tenuous, the IU does provide a tentative answer. I called it universal polarization and it is hinted at in item 14 of part D and is further explained in post #2 on the thread "Keep it Simple" which is posted on this forum. If you find the time, please investigate this.

 

Most respectfully, WillieB

[HydrogenBond]

I used the parallel between hurricanes and spiral galaxies because similar principles are at work. Where they seem unrelated is that spiral galaxies do not appear to have access to a coriolis affect, down drafts, etc. Spiral galaxies do the same thing as hurricanes using only the barebones stuff they have in common with hurricanes. This barebones is connected to hydrogen potential.

 

The real power behind a hurricane is connected to water. Evaporated water in the atmosphere contains a lot of solar energy potential that needs to be released from the atmoshere. If there was no water involved in weather and only thermal gradients, weather would be very tame. An updraft from hotter to cooler, when water is present, is more than just a thermal gradient. It is also a way to lower the potential of the water. The result is a double potential at work.

 

For example, the thermal gradient between the desert floor and upper atmosphere is higher than between the eye of a hurricane and the upper atmosphere, yet the hurricane will show a much broader organization of updraft with far more material movement. This paradox is due to the potential in the water. The updraft (and downdraft) is more of an affect than the cause; it is the fastest way for the hurricane to lower the water potential. The desert floor has a higher thermal gradient, but without the water potential, might only generate a dust devil or two.

 

If anyone has ever canned veggies (actually one uses glass mason jars), you place the open jar in boiling water. Beside sterilizing the veggies, it causes the air within the jar to become saturated with water. Next you place the lid on the jar and let it cool. The water will condense and pull a vacuum. It creates low pressure in the jar. If we poke a little hole in the lid, it will pull in the higher pressure outside air to create a wind in the jar. The wind itself will form a vortex.

 

Relative to stars, each star is a mini vortex. The energy updraft and downdraft that is perpendicular to the direction of the vortex or rotation is called the magnetic field. The magnetic field provides a way to help maximize the fusion of hydrogen. The magentic field is generated because of fusion. This energy updraft-downdraft then becomes a means to further lower the potential in the hydrogen. It keeps the hydrogen ducks in a row in preparation for fusion. If we add all these updrafts and downdrafts throughout the galaxy the entire thing becomes a vortex. Each star is like a tornado, with the spiral galaxy one big hurricane. The hurricane helps spawn star tornatoes, while the star tornatoes strengten the hurricane.