On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:28:01 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:

On Mar 2, 2:56*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:

Jan, there's a couple of problems with this.

I know :-)

1. You would expect to find young, small spiral galaxies with very
little subtended arc in the arms, and very old, large spiral galaxies
with very long subtended arc in the arms, in more or less a linear
relationship. There is no observable correlation like that.

It all depends on when the galaxies started emitting jets,
on how we measure time (their date), an how they were formed.

You would still expect there to be a relationship between size and the
subtended arc, in any observational sample, regardless of the age
scale attributed to the galaxies, as there is a definite relationship
in a "lawn-sprinkler" model. No such correlation is observed.

After some time I would expect some of the matter to tend towards orbitin=
g.

How quickly you retreated from "no orbit" to "tend towards orbiting".


2. The mass in the arms would have a significant *outward* component
of the velocity, which would be easily measured in Doppler
measurements. No such component is observed.

If you look at the picture of some of these galaxies,
then you will see some where the 'thing 'in the middle is sticking out on=
2 sides,
like a squeezed orange, and from that point on it sort of leaves
traces of material in which then stars form.

There are definitely bar galaxies.

Again, this interpretation of photos has nothing to do with the fact
that an outward component of the velocity would be easily measurable
with Doppler shifts, and none is observed.


3. Rather that galaxies being the accretion of mass, you would have
everyone believe that there are huge *sources* of mass in the centre
of galaxies, without accounting at all for what might be the source of
such large amounts of mass.

If we accept the idea of some big sort of 'bang', then it is MUCH more li=
kely big pieces of
that primordial (as yet unknown state of matter) where thrown out in the =
bang, and spread in the sky.

Why would you think this is much more likely? Why do compact chunks of
matter get distributed to widely spaced places in empty space, where
they THEN start spewing outward after being distributed?

Each piece then started spewing these jets and galaxies formed.
Where should the gasses come from in your model?

In galactic evolution models (which are supported by data), matter
which is thinly spread out with random small fluctuations of density
*accrete* gravitationally, forming increasingly dense clumps. This is
the same process by which planets in the solar system accreted into
round balls, and the same process by which gas accreted into the sun
(and other stars). Unless you also want me to believe that in the
center of the Earth there is a source of matter that spewed it out
until the Earth was formed.

And why would they stay close to galaxies? Hot gasses expand.

The gases were not hot when they accreted. They only heated up when
gravity pulled them together and then they started bonking into each
other, heating up as they go. This is the very same reason the sun is
hot. Cold gases accreted gravitationally until they were in close
enough contact to initiate fusion, which THEN made the sun a heat
source.


Ever looked a fireworks?

Right. Fireworks are DESIGNED to have multi-stage detonations, first
blowing big pieces apart without immediately detonating them, and then
delayed-reaction fuses ignite the smaller pieces. Good lord, Jan,
you're not suggesting that the universe is an artfully crafted
firework, are you?

It is not that the sparks are seeking the firecrackers, they ORIGINATE fr=
om those.

Now, back to the main focus of my comment.

If you choose to continue to believe a model that you've made up --
just because it's not the prevailing one which you despise primarily
because it has been put forward by those fatheaded, egomaniacal
physicists that you unilaterally hate -- despite the fact that your
model is in direct contradiction with experimental evidence, then you
were never doing science to begin with. In this case, your career
choice as an engineer was the most wise one.

PD

Look dude, you cannot even stay polite and on the subject,
start attacking me, maybe because subconsciously you see your ideas
(and main stream 'science') (note he quotes) is wrong.
Anyways, it is extremely simple.
One statement from science is:
The speed of the stars in the outer arms of the galaxies is so high that they SHOULD FLY AWAY,
and then it continues: So there must be a counter force blah blah dark matter, dark ghost?
Santa? Oops, we are looking we are looking, no Wimps, no dark matter, no nothing, oops,
need more research.
It is simple there is no such thing (except a few dead starts around the galaxies),
the explanation is super simple: THE STARS IN THE OUTER ARMS *****ARE***** FLYING AWAY.
No need for MOND, Wimps, mysterious forces, and your babble.

Contemporary science is the largest lot of bull**** since water earth and fire ware named as the primary elements.
Newton still rules, and no abberations have been found in our solar system.
With extreme accuracy NASA and ESA use Newton's equations to place spacecraft within kilometres of far aways planets
and their satellites.
Just that some Jewish student dreamt up MOND - and it is not even a theory, it is CURVE FITTING -
we do not even HAVE a theory of what causes gravity, the old wild haired dead man failed there too,
so bull**** somebody else with gravity waves, trillions of dimensions, never happening fusion break even power,
fire the lot of nut cakes who teach soulless math at our universities.
And let's have some stuff that is of use to humanity.
I want to fly to the stars, where is my space ship?
You have nothing, your theories suck, your destination is the same
as the dinosaurs if you do not let go of your insane fake politicalized science social projects.

My theory is not even a theory, it is an observation.
Your eyes are clouded by total bull**** stuffed into your brains during parrot training
in what is called schools.
Not that you would recognise an alien when he was standing in front of you.