Galaxy is forming new stars, in tail-like regions well away fromits galactic disk

"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:52:46 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:31:57 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:

The two tails are the two ends of the main spiral arms.

Galaxies have two main arms which begin giving off mass
at one point.

Michio Kaku was one of those scientists who showed
that without dark matter a galaxy would not stay together.

When the dark matter energy bubble is disrupted, possibly
from a near collision at the galaxy core with a small galaxy,
the dark matter machine gives up.

Are the spiral shapes of galaxies caused by some form of the Coriolis
effect such as that which causes the weather patterns on Earth to have
this same spiral shape?

If the three spatial dimensions of our discernable universe are
curved, but to an almost infinite radius, while the other seven
spatial dimensions of the multiverse are still curled up to less than
a Planck Length, the curvature of our spatial dimensions could produce
a Coriolis effect similar to that produced by the curved surface of
the earth. Are the galaxy spirals an indication that our universe is
indeed curved?


Would that not mean that the spiral structures of galaxies nearby each
other
would be aligned?

I think not, since the galaxy formation process would involve
three-dimensional space and the galaxies' material could coalesce
together from any random orientation. It seems this would be
determined by random chance or some level of probability.

Ah, I thought your implication was that galaxies spirals were produced as a
result of some large scale curvature of the universe.

You seem to be saying that it does, but the position of the spirals is
random.

How does the presence or absence of curvature of the universe make a
difference then ?

On Jan 24, 11:30*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Have you *ever* seen a gas cloud following somebody?
I know there is this guy who has a theory about intelligence in clouds of matter,
some quantum stuff, and maybe he is right, but what would a gas cloud see in a galaxy?
LOL

Well, we don't know if it's following it around. We don't know the
direction of travel of the galaxy. From our perspective, the galaxy is
barely budging other than through the expansion of space. For all we
know, this trailing tail could be directly in front of its direction
of travel.

It is clear, even to the aspiring scienceartist that the *ONLY* way you can have a gas
cloud following you, is if you are constantly farting.

That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
blackhole.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)) it happened YKhan
wrote in
:

On Jan 24, 11:30*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Have you *ever* seen a gas cloud following somebody?
I know there is this guy who has a theory about intelligence in clouds of=
matter,
some quantum stuff, and maybe he is right, but what would a gas cloud see=
in a galaxy?
LOL

Well, we don't know if it's following it around. We don't know the
direction of travel of the galaxy. From our perspective, the galaxy is
barely budging other than through the expansion of space. For all we
know, this trailing tail could be directly in front of its direction
of travel.

It is clear, even to the aspiring scienceartist that the *ONLY* way you c=
an have a gas
cloud following you, is if you are constantly farting.

That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
blackhole.

Yousuf Khan

Yes of course.
There is one other thing with the idea of jets emitting from a central 'thing'
forming spiral arms, and then stars forming in the ejected stuff,
when those stars die and are slung out further they could form that dark matter cloud around the galaxy,
the one needed to explain the rotation curves.
Like in the garden sprinkler the water falls in the end to the ground,
in a circle around the centre.
I am not sure about that, but I think that is possible.
That keeps it all very logical and clean.

On Jan 24, 1:42*pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:37 am, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:31:57 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:
The two tails are the two ends of the main spiral arms.

Galaxies have two main arms which begin giving off mass
at one point.

Michio Kaku was one of those scientists who showed
that without dark matter a galaxy would not stay together.

When the dark matter energy bubble is disrupted, possibly
from a near collision at the galaxy core with a small galaxy,
the dark matter machine gives up.

Are the spiral shapes of galaxies caused by some form of the Coriolis
effect such as that which causes the weather patterns on Earth to have
this same spiral shape?

If the three spatial dimensions of our discernable universe are
curved, but to an almost infinite radius, while the other seven
spatial dimensions of the multiverse are still curled up to less than
a Planck Length, the curvature of our spatial dimensions could produce
a Coriolis effect similar to that produced by the curved surface of
the earth. Are the galaxy spirals an indication that our universe is
indeed curved?

Is this dark matter perhaps the mass in those other universes that
form the multiverse of String/SuperString/Membrane Theory?

Gordon

What Michio Kaku implied is that the galaxy curves up into spiral
shapes because of dark matter, which recently was mapped
and appears as a ball around the galaxy, a vertically stretching ball,
not sideways stretching ball with the galaxy.

Michio said (2004) that if we remove dark matter, the galaxy falls
apart, as
there would not be much gravity left to hold it together.

This may be right, but I'm still wondering if this whole setup might
not involve nexus holes into another universe of the multiverse.

The idea is simple. Dark matter represents 90 percent of the
mass in a galaxy. If this dark matter vanishes, the galaxy breaks
apart, which
the picture shows in what happens with a galaxy
when that happens, because it is dark matter which keeps
a galaxy together. Something happened with dark matter
in that galaxy, the galaxy cannot keep itself together.
It's spiral arms, two of them start stretching long in space,
not circling any more the galaxy.

The strange thing is that mass which gets ejected is left behind.

Galaxies travel in space like trains, even accelerate on their course
for some reason.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:59:45 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:

On Jan 24, 1:42*pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:37 am, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:31:57 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:
The two tails are the two ends of the main spiral arms.

Galaxies have two main arms which begin giving off mass
at one point.

Michio Kaku was one of those scientists who showed
that without dark matter a galaxy would not stay together.

When the dark matter energy bubble is disrupted, possibly
from a near collision at the galaxy core with a small galaxy,
the dark matter machine gives up.

Are the spiral shapes of galaxies caused by some form of the Coriolis
effect such as that which causes the weather patterns on Earth to have
this same spiral shape?

If the three spatial dimensions of our discernable universe are
curved, but to an almost infinite radius, while the other seven
spatial dimensions of the multiverse are still curled up to less than
a Planck Length, the curvature of our spatial dimensions could produce
a Coriolis effect similar to that produced by the curved surface of
the earth. Are the galaxy spirals an indication that our universe is
indeed curved?

Is this dark matter perhaps the mass in those other universes that
form the multiverse of String/SuperString/Membrane Theory?

Gordon

What Michio Kaku implied is that the galaxy curves up into spiral
shapes because of dark matter, which recently was mapped
and appears as a ball around the galaxy, a vertically stretching ball,
not sideways stretching ball with the galaxy.

Michio said (2004) that if we remove dark matter, the galaxy falls
apart, as
there would not be much gravity left to hold it together.

This may be right, but I'm still wondering if this whole setup might
not involve nexus holes into another universe of the multiverse.

The idea is simple. Dark matter represents 90 percent of the
mass in a galaxy. If this dark matter vanishes, the galaxy breaks
apart, which
the picture shows in what happens with a galaxy
when that happens, because it is dark matter which keeps
a galaxy together. Something happened with dark matter
in that galaxy, the galaxy cannot keep itself together.
It's spiral arms, two of them start stretching long in space,
not circling any more the galaxy.

The strange thing is that mass which gets ejected is left behind.

Galaxies travel in space like trains, even accelerate on their course
for some reason.

I'm by no means an expert in these matters. I worked as an aerospace
physicist during my career, and concentrated on navigation and
guidance within this space/time universe we are able to perceive.

But, I wonder if perhaps the dark matter you mention is actually the
ordinary matter in those other universes associated with this universe
we perceive. SuperString/Membrane Theory posits 11 total dimensions,
one temporal and 10 spatial dimensions in the multiverse.

I have no disagreement concerning your statement that dark matter
keeps the galaxies together, but I wonder if that dark matter is
somehow the effects of the ordinary matter in the other universes of
the multiverse, that somehow interacts through the galaxy core "nexus"
and produces an effect in this universe we perceive.

As to galaxies traveling through space and even accelerating, it seems
this would be normal. That is, nothing is holding all the galaxies in
a stable position relative to our and other galaxies. Each galaxy is
subject to the net gravitational forces that exist in the region of
that galaxy, and those net gravitational forces aren't likely to be
equal in magnitude or orientation, throughout the universe. Each
galaxy produces a gravitational attraction for the other galaxies,
especially those closest to it. This would tend to pull them into a
"train" of galaxies, I would think.

Gordon

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:27:24 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:52:46 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:31:57 -0800 (PST), gb wrote:

The two tails are the two ends of the main spiral arms.

Galaxies have two main arms which begin giving off mass
at one point.

Michio Kaku was one of those scientists who showed
that without dark matter a galaxy would not stay together.

When the dark matter energy bubble is disrupted, possibly
from a near collision at the galaxy core with a small galaxy,
the dark matter machine gives up.

Are the spiral shapes of galaxies caused by some form of the Coriolis
effect such as that which causes the weather patterns on Earth to have
this same spiral shape?

If the three spatial dimensions of our discernable universe are
curved, but to an almost infinite radius, while the other seven
spatial dimensions of the multiverse are still curled up to less than
a Planck Length, the curvature of our spatial dimensions could produce
a Coriolis effect similar to that produced by the curved surface of
the earth. Are the galaxy spirals an indication that our universe is
indeed curved?


Would that not mean that the spiral structures of galaxies nearby each
other
would be aligned?

I think not, since the galaxy formation process would involve
three-dimensional space and the galaxies' material could coalesce
together from any random orientation. It seems this would be
determined by random chance or some level of probability.

Ah, I thought your implication was that galaxies spirals were produced as a
result of some large scale curvature of the universe.

You seem to be saying that it does, but the position of the spirals is
random.

How does the presence or absence of curvature of the universe make a
difference then ?

As I said, I'm by no means a specialist in this realm. I just have my
own set of ideas, and if you or others are interested in kicking these
around a bit, let's go!

I did intend to posit that galaxy spirals are the result of curved
space. But, nothing compels all galaxies to form from the same or from
similar patterns of mass distribution throughout the region of space
where they began forming. That is, each galaxy would be patterned in
compliance with location of the clumps and clusters that formed first,
then further coalesced into the final galaxy. This random distribution
of significant mass clumps would cause each galaxy to form
differently, some spiraling in one plane while others spiral in a
plane that is not parallel to the other galaxy's plane. Each galaxy
would form under the influence of curved space, but the orientation of
the galaxy would be a random event.

Gordon

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)) it happened YKhan
wrote in
That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
blackhole.

Yousuf Khan

Yes of course.

But in my case, I wasn't referring to the central jets populating the
material in this tail. I was referring to it shaping the material that
was already there into this tail.

There is one other thing with the idea of jets emitting from a central 'thing'
forming spiral arms, and then stars forming in the ejected stuff,
when those stars die and are slung out further they could form that dark matter cloud around the galaxy,
the one needed to explain the rotation curves.

There is no evidence for a greater distribution of dead stars in the
outer regions of a galaxy than there is in the disk. And why would dead
stars be tossed out of the galaxy rather than the live stars? What
distinguishes a live or dead star? Some dead stars (black holes, neutron
stars, white dwarfs) weigh more than most of the live stars in a galaxy
(red dwarfs).

Like in the garden sprinkler the water falls in the end to the ground,
in a circle around the centre.
I am not sure about that, but I think that is possible.
That keeps it all very logical and clean.

In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is pretty much aligned
perpendicular with their galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole
come out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets smashing into
the medium at right angles to its galactic disk would in anyway affect
the shape of its disk.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
[...]

Submitted to SPR as well. Likely attract better discussion - or nothing.

In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is pretty much aligned
perpendicular with their galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole
come out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets smashing into
the medium at right angles to its galactic disk would in anyway affect
the shape of its disk.

It wouldn't - he is saying something that loosely translates to "not
even wrong".

Black hole jetting is a largely local phenomena. The area around the
black hole, and the areas the beamline nails are affected. That's it -
and 'affected' gets to be a pretty weak term pretty quick.

Stuff forms in a disc for a reason: angular momentum.

I am reasonably certain that we do not know even one black hole whose
accretion disk's inclination is well known enough to make a
determination whether it lies in the same plane of its' host galaxy or
not. The local access hatch to nothing over at Sgr. A* has a pretty damn
wide parameter space for inclination that spans pretty much everything
between 0 and 90 degrees depending which model you believe.

It is, however, my personal instinct that the rotation of the
supermassive black hole and thus its' accretion disk are (more or less)
in the same plane as the rotation of the galaxy. However, I got two
thoughts:

a) I read once recently about discussions of accretion disks and how
current GR-MHD simulations cannot handle full three dimensional motion
of an accretion disk. In other words, the linking of the disk to the
plane of rotation is an assumption. A good assumption, as they go, but
an assumption nevertheless.

b) Given the relative size of a galaxy and its' black hole, I would not
be at all surprised to find that in some cases the black hole could be
rotating in a different plane. A few billion years of local
perturbations add up to a ****ton more effect than can be mounted
against the overall galaxy.


Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:15:46 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)) it happened YKhan
wrote in
That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
blackhole.

Yousuf Khan

Yes of course.

But in my case, I wasn't referring to the central jets populating the
material in this tail. I was referring to it shaping the material that
was already there into this tail.

Thats is a vague statement, obviously the 'tail' must come from somewhere,
and the place I think it is, is the 'thing' at the centre.
I say 'thing', because black hole' is mostly a mathematical result of Einsteinian philosphy:-)
Let me try to explain, without pestering the remains of that dead old wild haired man too much:
I agree that if you get more mass (purely theoretically) concentrated in one place,
then the escape speed, the speed needed to escape from such a blob, increases.
With enough mass the escape speed will be c, and light cannot escape.
Now there is a problem there, and the problem is that we do not know what happens when
you put so much mass together in such a small volume.
Of course any sane person who ever observed nature, will understand that there are
no 'infinities' in nature, something always gives way, so a 'singularity;' is out of the question.
That begs the question, "what happens (really into quotes today) when we have such a dense blob of matter?"
I have proposed that there will be processes happening that we do not yet understand,
processes that cause particles to be emitted that we have not yet even theorised about,
and I also proposed that those particles could be a Le Sage type participle, causing rays of those
to be emitted from the centre of galaxies, causing a type of push gravity.
At the same time rays of similar particles from all other galaxies push the centre together,
so you have an opposing force, the latter one is gravity pushing things together,
and the first one are the same particles creating an outwards force.
This would explain
1) gravity
2) why the orbits of the stars have the 'wrong' speed in a galaxy (more to the centre
there is a balance of forces),
3) why the universe is expanding ever faster.
4) get rid of the 'singularity'.

So, in the compressed thing at the centre processes happen that cause one or more jets of exotic material
to be ejected in several possible directions, and if 2 jets, and not strait up, causes the spiral arms
to be formed.
In those spiral arms then the exotic matter from this yet unknown state, sort of condenses into matter as we know it,
and stars are born.
Born, to die eventually, while all the time flying outward.
Then the balance of forces between the pushing of all other Le Sage particles from other galaxies and this one begins,
and a heap of cooled down, 'dark' in the real sense, a halo, of dead stars, surrounds the galaxy.


There is one other thing with the idea of jets emitting from a central 'thing'
forming spiral arms, and then stars forming in the ejected stuff,
when those stars die and are slung out further they could form that dark matter cloud around the galaxy,
the one needed to explain the rotation curves.

There is no evidence for a greater distribution of dead stars in the
outer regions of a galaxy than there is in the disk. And why would dead
stars be tossed out of the galaxy rather than the live stars? What
distinguishes a live or dead star? Some dead stars (black holes, neutron
stars, white dwarfs) weigh more than most of the live stars in a galaxy
(red dwarfs).

All are thrown out, think garden sprinkler, and in this case we were talking about, a 'thing' with
only one jet, straight up, you do not get spiral arms (no rotation), but a plume.
That is that gas cloud.
There may well be cooled down matter further out where we detect no EM radiation, but we cannot see it.



Like in the garden sprinkler the water falls in the end to the ground,
in a circle around the centre.
I am not sure about that, but I think that is possible.
That keeps it all very logical and clean.

In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is pretty much aligned
perpendicular with their galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole
come out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets smashing into
the medium at right angles to its galactic disk would in anyway affect
the shape of its disk.

Yousuf Khan

Well, it seems to me those are different jets.
Anyways there is a problem there too, if you believe the old dead wild haired man's heritage, the one
that could not unite gravity with the other forces and conflicts with QM,
than NOTHING can move faster then light, and nothing can escape a black hole,
so if you say 'black hole' then if you want to accept that fragment of that dead old
wild haired man's theory, you have a 100% contradiction, as there can be no jets.

As a final word on this, sort of an observation of human natu
Long time ago 'science' thought the sun was burning coal.
Not a bad idea, as burning coal was the only thing known at that time that would cause lot of heat and light...
Much later things like fusion were understood, and now the sun is, of course: burning fusion fuel...
I think this is really funny, I predict, and it will be, if we ever find a new mechanism ... that we will find
that that is what already is happening in nature, probably clearly for all to see.
So the suggestion of yet unknown processes with yet unknown particles, happening in a 'thing',
is not that alien really, a safe bet.

Dear eric gisse:

On Jan 27, 2:26*am, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

[...]

Submitted to SPR as well. Likely attract better
discussion - or nothing.

In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is
pretty much aligned perpendicular with their
galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole come
out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets
smashing into the medium at right angles to its
galactic disk would in anyway affect the shape
of its disk.

It wouldn't - he is saying something that loosely
translates to "not even wrong".

Black hole jetting is a largely local phenomena. The
area around the black hole, and the areas the
beamline nails are affected. That's it - and 'affected'
gets to be a pretty weak term pretty quick.

Stuff forms in a disc for a reason: angular momentum.

Small correction: Stuff stays axially symmetric due to angular
momentum. It forms down into a disk via *friction* (and frame
dragging?).

I am reasonably certain that we do not know even
one black hole whose accretion disk's inclination is
well known enough to make a determination whether
it lies in the same plane of its' host galaxy or not.
The local access hatch to nothing over at Sgr. A*
has a pretty damn wide parameter space for
inclination that spans pretty much everything
between 0 and 90 degrees depending which model
you believe.

It is, however, my personal instinct that the rotation
of the supermassive black hole and thus its'
accretion disk are (more or less) in the same plane
as the rotation of the galaxy.

Unless there have been "recent" mergers of two or more galaxies...

However, I got two thoughts:

a) I read once recently about discussions of
accretion disks and how current GR-MHD
simulations cannot handle full three dimensional
motion of an accretion disk. In other words, the
linking of the disk to the plane of rotation is an
assumption. A good assumption, as they go, but
an assumption nevertheless.

A lot of similar assumptions in fluid flows in channels of various
shapes. Of course, we get to test those...

b) Given the relative size of a galaxy and its'
black hole, I would not be at all surprised to find
that in some cases the black hole could be
rotating in a different plane. A few billion years of
local perturbations add up to a ****ton more effect
than can be mounted against the overall galaxy.

For example, we have a large number of globular clusters that move
through the vicinity of the Milky Way's central black hole, and do so
out-of-plane (whether or not there are similar clusters in-plane).

David A. Smith