Are Galaxies a Centrifuge or Centripital Drain?

Is the whole of the galaxy a centrifuge or a centripetal drain? If the
supermassive black hole in the nuclear center of each galaxy has been
formed by "gobbling up" millions and billions of stars as current
theories suggest, then the galaxy is a centripetal drain, wherein the
black hole is swallowing the mass of the galaxy star by star. However,
the spiral arm structure of spiral galaxies appear as if they were
formed by centrifugal force! What do you think?

Paul Hollister
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com contains complete manuscript of
Origin and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
oups.com...
Is the whole of the galaxy a centrifuge or a centripetal drain? If the
supermassive black hole in the nuclear center of each galaxy has been
formed by "gobbling up" millions and billions of stars as current
theories suggest, then the galaxy is a centripetal drain, wherein the
black hole is swallowing the mass of the galaxy star by star. However,
the spiral arm structure of spiral galaxies appear as if they were
formed by centrifugal force! What do you think?

Paul Hollister
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com contains complete manuscript of
Origin and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory

Had a quick look at your link. It is the same stuff you have been posting
for quite a while. The following represents the generally accepted current
view of the timeline for the creation of the universe.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...e_Big_Bang.htm
Please point to me in that timeline where hydrogen magically appeared.
According to that time line hydrogen formed in the Lepton epoch when the
slight imbalance of protons and electrons left over from the Hadron epoch
combined to form hydrogen. The thing we do not understand in not where
hydrogen came from - it is why there was a slight imbalance between matter
and antimatter. If you claim, as I think you claimed in past discussions,
that is what you mean by hydrogen coming into existence then I would
strongly suggest that is not the generally accepted meaning of saying that.

Bill

Paul Hollister wrote:
Is the whole of the galaxy a centrifuge or a centripetal drain? If the
supermassive black hole in the nuclear center of each galaxy has been
formed by "gobbling up" millions and billions of stars as current
theories suggest, then the galaxy is a centripetal drain, wherein the
black hole is swallowing the mass of the galaxy star by star. However,
the spiral arm structure of spiral galaxies appear as if they were
formed by centrifugal force! What do you think?


I think there is no such thing as centrifugal force.
I think that posing a question that asks whether the behavior seen is
due to centripetal or centrifugal force, is a question born of
confusion.

PD

I have no idea what you're alluding to.

PD

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message oups.com...
Is the whole of the galaxy a centrifuge or a centripetal drain? If the
supermassive black hole in the nuclear center of each galaxy has been
formed by "gobbling up" millions and billions of stars

That's quite wrong.
It's bullyons and bullyons and bullyons of stars.

Dirk Vdm

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
oups.com...
Is the whole of the galaxy a centrifuge or a centripetal drain?

Neither. The centrifugal and centripetal effects must
be roughly balanced for the stars to continue to orbit
around the centre. If either predominated, the galaxy
would have collapsed or dispersed by now.

If the
supermassive black hole in the nuclear center of each galaxy has been
formed by "gobbling up" millions and billions of stars as current
theories suggest, then the galaxy is a centripetal drain, wherein the
black hole is swallowing the mass of the galaxy star by star.

Look up the star "S2" which passes within 17 light hours
of the central black hole. It hasn't been swallowed yet.

However,
the spiral arm structure of spiral galaxies appear as if they were
formed by centrifugal force! What do you think?

In reality the motion of individual stars is quite chaotic
as they are influenced by all their neighbours. The arms
are more stable because they represent something like a
wave of new stars that moves through the disk material.

George

CgrOtyDPhM6xz4fPjc+EzrfPhM6xIM+Ezr/PhSDPhs+Jz4TPjM+CIHdyb3RlOgo+IGkgbWVudCB0
aGUgcHJvcGFnYXRpb24gb2YgRU0gaXMgZGljdGF0ZWQgYnkgdG hlIHJpZ2h0IGhhbmQgcnVsZSwg
eW91Cj4ga25vdyBjdXJsIG9mIC4uICBnaXZlIGEgdmVjdG9yIG 9ydGhvZ29uYWwgZXRjCgpSaWdo
dC1oYW5kIHJ1bGUgYXBwbGllcyB0byBhIGxvdCBvZiB0aGluZ3 MgaW4gZGlmZmVyZW50IGNvbnRl
eHRzLiBJCnN0aWxsIGhhdmUgbm8gaWRlYSB3aGF0IHlvdSdyZS BhbGx1ZGluZyB0by4KClBECg==

On 26 May 2005 12:59:31 -0700, "? ???????? ??? ?????"
wrote:



this is bull, a black hole have only space for a single colapsed star
No, you are quite wrong on this.

On 27 May 2005 06:41:17 -0700, "PD" wrote:



? ???????? ??? ????? wrote:
i ment the propagation of EM is dictated by the right hand rule, you
know curl of .. give a vector orthogonal etc

Right-hand rule applies to a lot of things in different contexts. I
still have no idea what you're alluding to.

PD
From the other posts he has posted, i think he has no idea as well.

"Aristotle" wrote in
message ...
On 27 May 2005 06:41:17 -0700, "PD" wrote:



? ???????? ??? ????? wrote:
i ment the propagation of EM is dictated by the right hand rule, you
know curl of .. give a vector orthogonal etc

Right-hand rule applies to a lot of things in different contexts. I
still have no idea what you're alluding to.

PD
From the other posts he has posted, i think he has no idea as well.

In case you haven't cottoned on yet he is just a troll who posts dyslexic
nonsense under a number of different names in an attempt to have fun at our
expense. Either ignore him or turn the tables and post replies that amuse
you at his expense.

Bill