Angular Momentum

On Jul 24, 10:17*am, "Painius" wrote:

So Jupiter and Saturn possess about 90% of all the
angular momentum in the Solar System. *And the vast
majority of the rest of the angular momentum is had
by all the other major planets and minor planets that
go around the Sun. *This has presented science with a
very interesting puzzle...

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Yo Paine
If you recomember, in the earlier discussion on
this subject, it was suggested that perhaps the fully-formed Sun did
not "lose" angular momentum but didn't have it in the first place.
This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.
Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jul 24, 10:17 am, "Painius" wrote:

So Jupiter and Saturn possess about 90% of all the
angular momentum in the Solar System. And the vast
majority of the rest of the angular momentum is had
by all the other major planets and minor planets that
go around the Sun. This has presented science with a
very interesting puzzle...

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Yo Paine
If you recomember, in the earlier discussion on
this subject, it was suggested that perhaps the fully-formed Sun did
not "lose" angular momentum but didn't have it in the first place.

I don't see how, oc. If it was spinning fast enough
to be accreting through the top and bottom, then
there had to have been a large amount of angular
momentum for this to happen...

This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.

Are you saying that this disk is what spreads out
to form the planets and planetesimals? In several
ways, that would make sense. However, the disk
would have had to swell and expand long before
the protoSun became a fusor, a true star.

By the time the protoSun ignited, many of the orbs
in the disk would have had to accrete enough of
the surrounding material so as not to be blown off
and away by the initial blast of solar wind that took
place when the Sun ignited.

So the disk would have had to have been in place
long before the compressed hydrogen sphere at the
center of the disk fused to become a true star.

Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

So the swelling of the disk would have had to take
place while the bipolar accreting process you talk
about was taking place. At this point, the hydrogen
cloud must have been compressed into a tight, fast-
spinning sphere (not into an already fully formed
disk with a bulge at the center, as the mainstream
model describes).

So the disk swells/expands outward from the sphere
and takes almost all of the angular momentum with
it. Millions and millions of small accretions of solids
begin to form in the disk that are spinning like crazy!
These keep bumping into each other and clumping
together to form larger and larger masses.

The process of planet accretion probably took only a
million (or a few million) years. During this time the
Sun, almost totally lacking angular momentum, did
spin slowly and continued to compress. When the
pressure at the core reached a critical level, fusion
of hydrogen into helium began and P O W ! our
big, bright Sun was born.

The ensuing powerful blast of energy blew all the
smaller accretions and dust out beyond Neptune,
while the larger accretions held their own and
continued to orbit the new star.

Some accretions and collisions continued to take
place in the disk, eventually forming the awesome
Solar System pretty much as we see it today.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jul 26, 6:48*am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message...

This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
* * * * * * * * * In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.

Are you saying that this disk is what spreads out
to form the planets and planetesimals?

No, the proto-planets/planetesimals were accreting in situ at this
stage, separate from the central disc of the proto-Sun.

Soo.. By the time the protoSun ignited, many of the orbs
in the disk would have (accreted) enough of
the surrounding material so as not to be blown off
and away by the initial blast of solar wind that took
place when the Sun ignited.

Yupp.

So the disk would have had to have been in place
long before the compressed hydrogen sphere at the
center of the disk fused to become a true star.

Yup.

* * * * * * * * * * *Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

So the swelling of the disk would have had to take
place while the bipolar accreting process you talk
about was taking place. *At this point, the hydrogen
cloud must have been compressed into a tight, fast-
spinning sphere (not into an already fully formed
disk with a bulge at the center, as the mainstream
model describes).

So the disk swells/expands outward from the sphere
and takes almost all of the angular momentum with
it. *
Yes. But note that the central entity you term a "sphere" was itself
highly compacted and oblate due to its high spin rate. Then *upon
Ignition at its core*, it commenced expanding by many, many orders of
magnitude, dissipating the angular momentum of the *pre-Ignition* core
mass. The expansion ultimately balanced out against gravity, the
stasis point forming the sphere of the newborn, slow-rotating Sun.

The ensuing powerful blast of energy blew all the
smaller accretions and dust out beyond Neptune,
while the larger accretions held their own and
continued to orbit the new star.

Some accretions and collisions continued to take
place in the (protoplanetary) disk, eventually forming the awesome
Solar System pretty much as we see it today.

By jove you've 'got it' old chap. :-)

But note one major difference between an accreting BH and an accreting
proto-star. A BH exists in a compacted, degenerate state and thus
cannot expand, shedding its angular momentum.

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

No, sorry oc, it cannot be forgiven in light of his
"scientific insight". He's a dickhead, and were he
posting to alt.astronomy, you'd probably either be
ignoring him or plonking him outright.

His diatribe can be weighed by his other facets.
The primacy of math is a fact of life we all have to
learn to live with. It isn't science if it cannot be
measured, or at the very least, deduced using the
appropriate equations.

Big pictures are fine. Quantum mechanics is all
based upon "big picture" deductions. Most of the
theories and ideas of cosmology are "big picture"
deductions (granted, some of the pictures are very
distorted). But if a working mathematical model
cannot be programmed into a computer, analyzed,
and deductions made from it, then an idea is left
to philosophical solutions.

And sorry, that ain't science. That's philosophy.
I'm not and i won't belittle philosophy. The big
picture is and always will be an important part of
finding the truth about reality.

But it ain't science. And therefore, without this
important foundation, it may always be frought
with controversy.

And thank goodness! I can't imagine how boring
life would be without all of our controversies!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jul 26, 7:48*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message...

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

No, sorry oc, it cannot be forgiven in light of his
"scientific insight". *He's a dickhead, and were he
posting to alt.astronomy, you'd probably either be
ignoring him or plonking him outright.

His diatribe can be weighed by his other facets.
The primacy of math is a fact of life we all have to
learn to live with.

The operative word is *primacy*... of math. Nobody's denying the
utility of math. But making The Math substitute for the mechanism it's
describing is exactly what bequeathed us the VSP. The sorry state of
cosmology/astrophysics and theoretical physics is the direct legacy of
the Primacy of math.

*It isn't science if it cannot be
measured, or at the very least, deduced using the
appropriate equations.

It ain't science if it's predicated on a false premise. Using
perfectly good math to describe it don't make it science. Geocentrism
being a case in point. Today we got "eleven dimensions" and an ever-
escalating patchwork of fudgery and kludgery, "adding epicycles" using
perfectly good math to make the VSP "work". This is the essence of
what was meant in that poignant diatribe against the Primacy of math.

Big pictures are fine. *Quantum mechanics is all
based upon "big picture" deductions. *Most of the
theories and ideas of cosmology are "big picture"
deductions (granted, some of the pictures are very
distorted). *But if a working mathematical model
cannot be programmed into a computer, analyzed,
and deductions made from it...

...like "ever-accelerating expansion" culminating in an ignominious
entropic heat death.

And... that ain't science. *That's philosophy.
I'm not and i won't belittle philosophy. *The big
picture is and always will be an important part of
finding the truth about reality.

But it ain't science. *And therefore, without this
important foundation {math}, it may always be frought
with controversity.

The whole point is - the *utility* of math is supposed to be
subservient to the mechanism it is describing. The evil of the Primacy
of math is that it supplants and denies the existance of that
mechanism, becoming the substitute `for` the mechanism. It presents
supernovae, hypernovae and quasars as being POWERED literally by
equations, 'metrics', geometry, and "curvature" of a mathematical
abstraction called "space-time". Such is the legacy of the P of M and
its ******* offspring the VSP.
Rant off. :-)