Cool halo gas caught spinning like galactic disks

Cool halo gas caught spinning like galactic disks
Artist conception of gas streams (blue) feeding a galactic disk. The inflow fuels new star formation, and because the infalling gas is spinning, the size of the disk grows. Credit: James Josephides, Swinburne Astronomy Productions

A group of astronomers led by Crystal Martin and Stephanie Ho of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has discovered a dizzying cosmic choreography among typical star-forming galaxies; their cool halo gas appears to be in step with the galactic disks, spinning in the same direction.

The researchers used W. M. Keck Observatory to obtain the first-ever direct observational evidence showing that corotating halo gas is not only possible, but common. Their findings suggest that the whirling gas halo will eventually spiral in towards the disk.

"This is a major breakthrough in understanding how galactic disks grow," said Martin, Professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara and lead author of the study. "Galaxies are surrounded by massive reservoirs of gas that extend far beyond the visible portions of galaxies. Until now, it has remained a mystery how exactly this material is transported to galactic disks where it can fuel the next generation of star formation."

The study is published in today's issue of the Astrophysical Journal and shows the combined results of 50 standard star-forming galaxies taken over a period of several years.

Nearly a decade ago, theoretical models predicted that the angular momentum of the spinning cool halo gas partially offsets the gravitational force pulling it towards the galaxy, thereby slowing down the gas accretion rate and lengthening the period of disk growth.

The team's results confirm this theory, which show that the angular momentum of the halo gas is high enough to slow down the infall rate but not so high as to shut down feeding the galactic disk entirely.

Cool halo gas caught spinning like galactic disks
J165930+373527 is among the galaxies detected with corotating halo gas. This high-resolution W. M. Keck Observatory NIRC2 image (red) combined with hubble space telescope WFC3 imaging (blue and green) resolves the galactic disk. The galactic rotation was measured from W. M. Keck Observatory and apache point observatory emission-line spectra. Credit: S. Ho & C. Martin, UC Santa Barbara/W. M. Keck Observatory/STSCI

Methodology

The astronomers first obtained spectra of bright quasars behind star-forming galaxies to detect the invisible halo gas by its absorption-line signature in the quasar spectra. Next, the researchers used Keck Observatory's laser guide star adaptive optics (LGSAO) system and near-infrared camera (NIRC2) on the Keck II telescope, along with Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3), to obtain high-resolution images of the galaxies.

"What sets this work apart from previous studies is that our team also used the quasar as a reference 'star' for Keck's laser guide star AO system," said co-author Ho, a physics graduate student at UC Santa Barbara. "This method removed the blurring caused by the atmosphere and produced the detailed images we needed to resolve the galactic disks and geometrically determine the orientation of the galactic disks in three-dimensional space."

The team then measured the Doppler shifts of the gas clouds using the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS) at Keck Observatory, as well as obtaining spectra from Apache Point Observatory. This enabled the researchers to determine what direction the gas is spinning and how fast. The data proved that the gas is rotating in the same direction as the galaxy, and the of the gas is not stronger than the force of gravity, meaning the gas will spiral into the galactic disk.

"Just as ice skaters build up momentum and spin when they bring their arms inward, the halo gas is likely spinning today because it was once at much larger distances where it was deposited by galactic winds, stripped from satellite galaxies, or directed toward the galaxy by a cosmic filament," said Martin.

Next steps

The next step for Martin and her team is to measure the rate at which the gas is being pulled into the galactic disk. Comparing the inflow rate to the star formation rate will provide a better timeline of the evolution of normal star-forming , and explain how galactic disks continue to grow over very long timescales that span billions of years.


Explore further

Why do some galactic unions lead to doom?

More information: Crystal L. Martin et al, Kinematics of Circumgalactic Gas: Feeding Galaxies and Feedback, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18ac
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Cool halo gas caught spinning like galactic disks (2019, June 19) retrieved 16 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-cool-halo-gas-caught-galactic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
127 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 19, 2019
All Plasmatic Gas Occupying This Vacuum Rotates

University of California
Just as ice skaters build up momentum and spin when they bring their arms inward, the halo gas is likely spinning today because it was once at much larger distances where it was deposited by galactic winds, stripped from satellite galaxies, or directed toward the galaxy by a cosmic filament

Is it no surprise
This infinite vacuum
Is occupied by tenuous plasmatic clouds and filaments
Just as when a star in its starry nursery forms
The reason why it is rotating is this collapsing plasmatic cloud spins as it collapses
So it is with these larger plasmatic clouds
The reason this galaxy is rotating
Is these billions of Ly plasmatic clouds are rotating as they collapse
Forming this galaxy
Fore it will come as no surprise
Whether elliptical, globular or spiral
These billion Ly galactic plasmatic clouds rotations
Are in this same direction as these starry stars rotations

Jun 19, 2019
Sez the article:

"This is a major breakthrough in understanding how galactic disks grow," said Martin, Professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara and lead author of the study. "Galaxies are surrounded by massive reservoirs of gas that extend far beyond the visible portions of galaxies. Until now, it has remained a mystery how exactly this material is transported to galactic disks where it can fuel the next generation of star formation."

.......move over dark matter, you've been replaced by what is real. A lot of gravity must be in all that gas if it can "fuel the generation of star formation".

Ok, now let's see who will be the first to say, "It's too thinly dispersed" to displace DM Cosmic Fairy Dust, the same ones who will argue that the reason we can't detect DM because it too is too thinly dispersed for detection but has overwhelming INFERRED GRAVITY effects that can be sorted out from the gravitational effects of the baryonic matter under discussion in this article.

Jun 19, 2019
^^^^^Clueless idiot is out of his depth again. Stick to cleaning the floors, janitor boy.

Jun 19, 2019
Another galactic scale process which has zero to do with gravity.

Just a hint to future generations of scientists, gravitational cosmology is a dead science. Do yourselves a favor and study EM and plasma physics and leave the darkists to play their fanciful maths gymnastics.

Jun 19, 2019
Another galactic scale process which has zero to do with gravity.

Just a hint to future generations of scientists, gravitational cosmology is a dead science. Do yourselves a favor and study EM and plasma physics and leave the darkists to play their fanciful maths gymnastics.


You don't understand plasma physics. And those that do say you are wrong. Ever wondered why that is? Because you are a mythologist clown, with zero scientific knowledge. Earth orbiting Saturn, anyone? Lol.

Jun 19, 2019
"Their findings suggest that the whirling gas halo will eventually spiral in towards the disk."

The 'gas' is moving outwards not inwards.

Jun 19, 2019
"Their findings suggest that the whirling gas halo will eventually spiral in towards the disk."

The 'gas' is moving outwards not inwards.


Reference for that? Or just another loon making stuff up?

Jun 19, 2019
"Reference for that?"

You have a reference to how the motion is determined?

Jun 19, 2019
One of the few times I have to agree with Jones:

"The data proved that the gas is rotating in the same direction as the galaxy, and the angular momentum of the gas is not stronger than the force of gravity, meaning the gas will spiral into the galactic disk."

The Above From the Article.

However, my theory is that that cold gas is cooled gas from the earlier ejected plasma from it's active jet phase coming back into plane with the rest of the galaxy's material, and since it retained the momentum from the jet it is pre-disposed to spiral inwards in the same direction it was originally jetted out as, recombined, cooled and re-joined, Rinse and repeat. Keep sending split ions out to capture new material and bring it to the central BH.

Eternal Recycling Service.

Jun 19, 2019
"Reference for that?"

You have a reference to how the motion is determined?


Errr, gravity tends to attract.

Jun 19, 2019
Given the fact this plasma is flowing into the galaxy via filaments (AKA electric currents), it would appear as if gravity has got little to nothing to do with this scenario.

Jun 19, 2019
"The data proved that the gas is rotating in the same direction as the galaxy, and the angular momentum of the gas is not stronger than the force of gravity, meaning the gas will spiral into the galactic disk."

The irony being the galactic rotation cannot be explained without resorting to faerie dust. Fail at every turn in gravity only Universe.

Jun 19, 2019
"Given the fact this plasma is flowing into the galaxy via filaments.."

Same question, how is inflow determined?

Jun 19, 2019
In publications [1-3] a new cosmological paradigm was proposed. The picture of the birth of stars and galaxies resulting from this paradigm was also presented in [4, 5]. In [6] a hypothesis was proposed about the origin of the jets and outflows from stars and galaxies. A new generation of ground and orbital astronomical instruments rapidly increased the sensitivity and resolution of observations. In this paper, an attempt is made to analyze the latest observations from the point of view of a new paradigm.
https://www.acade...rvations
https://www.acade...ome_From

Jun 20, 2019
"The data proved that the gas is rotating in the same direction as the galaxy, and the angular momentum of the gas is not stronger than the force of gravity, meaning the gas will spiral into the galactic disk."

The irony being the galactic rotation cannot be explained without resorting to faerie dust. Fail at every turn in gravity only Universe.


More inane crap from a mythologist! What is your solution, woo boy? Where is it written up? What is the mechanism? Where is the evidence? Stick to Velikovsky and the unphysical universe you inhabit.

Jun 20, 2019
Given the fact this plasma is flowing into the galaxy via filaments (AKA electric currents), it would appear as if gravity has got little to nothing to do with this scenario.


No electric currents, woo boy. You made that up.

Jun 20, 2019
Given the fact this plasma is flowing into the galaxy via filaments (AKA electric currents), it would appear as if gravity has got little to nothing to do with this scenario.


No electric currents, woo boy. You made that up.

They refer to the filaments delivering matter to the galaxy, and filaments are evidence of electric currents in plasmas. Alfvén, Fäthammar, and Peratt wrote all about it, your denial is just your typical lies, obfuscation, and willful ignorance.

Jun 20, 2019
Given the fact this plasma is flowing into the galaxy via filaments (AKA electric currents), it would appear as if gravity has got little to nothing to do with this scenario.


No electric currents, woo boy. You made that up.

They refer to the filaments delivering matter to the galaxy, and filaments are evidence of electric currents in plasmas. Alfvén, Fäthammar, and Peratt wrote all about it, your denial is just your typical lies, obfuscation, and willful ignorance.


Wrong, thicko. If they were currents, you uneducated oaf, we would see this cosmic web imprinted on all-sky maps in synchrotron. We don't. Ergo, they are not currents, you idiot. Lern to scienz, woo boy.

Jun 20, 2019
Wrong, thicko. If they were currents, you uneducated oaf, we would see this cosmic web imprinted on all-sky maps in synchrotron. We don't. Ergo, they are not currents, you idiot. Lern to scienz, woo boy.

There are filaments in plasma, which are electric currents you buffoon. It has been explained by actual plasma physicists, not the pretend astrophysicist type but real plasma physicists. And as shown with a recent article about a "magnetic bridge" between two galaxies which showed the very synchrotron radiation you mentioned, and you waved your hands about and said no electric currents. And it doesn't show up in the all sky maps like you insist they should. There is a reason these don't show up and it has been explained to you numerous times, but alas your old mind is incapable of processing any new information. That you still believe in frozen-in fields just goes to show you stopped learning about 50-years-ago.

Jun 20, 2019
Filaments are defined as composed of galaxies. We've only found one that has gas and dust in it.

Just sayin'.

Jun 21, 2019
Filaments are defined as composed of galaxies. We've only found one that has gas and dust in it.

Just sayin'.

da schnied let his stupid out again by making a moronic statement.

Just sayin'.

Jun 21, 2019
OK, so let's see the papers that show dust and gas in filaments.

So far we got one. Good luck with that.

Looks like you're lying again.

Jun 21, 2019
To be completely clear: doubtless, according to theory, cosmic filaments entrain lots of dust and gas. The thing is, we don't know that yet. Right now it's just conjecture. When we get enough data maybe someone can make hypotheses about it. You know, like the string physics and relativity you all deny.

So, hypocritical much? I mean, just askin'.

Jun 21, 2019
da schnied doubles down on stupid with two more moronic posts. Two moronic posts that contradict one another.

Just sayin'...

Jun 21, 2019
No, they don't contradict one another. Maybe you can provide links to the studies of filaments that show dust and gas.

Get to work, liar.

Jun 21, 2019
You're the butt-boiz who have a fit about simulations.

If you don't like them don't cite them.

Jun 21, 2019
Your moronic comments do not require a response except to point out how moronic they are. You are at the height of stupidity if you think these plasma filaments are devoid of dust and "gas".

Jun 21, 2019
So prove it. Should be easy. No simulations, though.

Jun 21, 2019
da schnied pretends dust doesn't obscure the galactic core. And he pretends there aren't countless images produced by telescopes;
https://www.space...ic1621a/
Or that Herschel didn't observe countless dusty filaments everywhere it was pointed;
http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/
Unlike the fabled gravity monster one can clearly see dusty filaments at every scale in the cosmos.

Jun 21, 2019
It saw inter*stellar* filaments, not inter*galactic* filaments.

You're lying again, @cantthink.

And BTW that's not an accident; I saw the articles on interstellar filaments and figured I'd sandbag you. And you went for it.

Jun 21, 2019
Plasma is scalable, galactic filaments will reflect much of what interstellar filaments do. But nevertheless, you still pretend Herschel didn't detect these for a number of years.

https://phys.org/...ent.html

Note, the article states;
"Dust obscures much of the star-formation activity in the early universe, but telescopes like Herschel can detect the infrared glow of this dust as it is heated by nascent stars."

Your lies and obfuscation is laughable, you lack the dignity of even the most rudimentary lifeforms.

Jun 21, 2019
According to Wiki:
"The corotation circle is the circle around the galactic center of a spiral galaxy, where the stars move at the same speed as the spiral arms. The radius of this circle is called corotation radius. Inside the circle the stars move faster and outside they move slower than the spiral arms.

The Sun is located near the corotation circle of the Milky Way.[1]"

From the article:
The researchers used W. M. Keck Observatory to obtain the first-ever direct observational evidence showing that corotating halo gas is not only possible, but common. Their findings suggest that the whirling gas halo will eventually spiral in towards the disk.

The swirling gas halo's velocity seems to be dependent on the velocity of the spiral's arms, i.e. As the spiral arms go, so goes the halo. Seems to be that the swirling gas halo is simply a Reservoir of fuel that is slowly fed into the disc 'as needed' and is a Natural occurrence. It isn't Dark Matter.


Jun 21, 2019
And of course, it doesn't say anything about gas and dust *in the filament,* but about dust in the early universe. You're just doubling down on the lie.

Jun 22, 2019
Stupid just can't learn. There is dust in the filaments, the faerie tales about the "early universe" guesswork is pure hypothetical conjecture.

Jun 22, 2019
Again, how do you know there is dust in the filaments? You haven't given any evidence yet.

I will stipulate there probably is gas and dust in them, but that's only "probably" and is only supported by simulations. Now, I think simulations are fine, but you're always denying them, so that means you're inconsistent; either you believe the simulations or you don't. Make up your mind.

Jun 22, 2019
Again, how do you know there is dust in the filaments?

There are entire galactic superclusters in these filaments, of course there is dust and plasma.

Jun 22, 2019
Again, prove it. There is no "of course" exception in science.

Jun 22, 2019
Obtuse is obtuse. Look it up yourself, there is no "proving it" in these threads. Especially when your only goal is to troll as you are doing.

Jun 22, 2019
Scientists look for evidence. You got any? No one here has seen it if you do.

Oh and BTW dust is not plasma.

Jun 22, 2019
Scientists look for evidence. You got any? No one here has seen it if you do.

Oh and BTW dust is not plasma.

You're running out of toes da schnied...
https://en.m.wiki...y_plasma
Nevertheless, gas=plasma according to astrophysicists.

Jun 22, 2019
Dust is not gas.

Still waiting for evidence. You're running out of lies.

Jun 22, 2019
Dust is not gas.

Still waiting for evidence. You're running out of lies.

Nope, you're still trolling as shown by your asinine comments and willful ignorance of Herschel observations.

Jun 22, 2019
We already did that. Herschel hasn't observed dust and gas in intergalactic filaments.

You're just doubling down on the lies again.

Jun 22, 2019
You cannot utter a word without lying, you are a truly despicable POS. The article I linked above described galaxies with high star formation regions being blocked by dust, which Herschel was able to detect due to it's ability to see through the dusty plasma. Again, you choose willful ignorance.

Jun 22, 2019
Errr, where does it say the dust and gas were *in the filament*, which is what you're claiming? Sounds like it was between us and the filament.

What exactly do you think an intergalactic filament is, anyway?


Jun 22, 2019

There are filaments in plasma, which are electric currents you buffoon. It has been explained by actual plasma physicists, not the pretend astrophysicist type but real plasma physicists. And as shown with a recent article about a "magnetic bridge" between two galaxies which showed the very synchrotron radiation you mentioned, and you waved your hands about and said no electric currents. And it doesn't show up in the all sky maps like you insist they should. There is a reason these don't show up and it has been explained to you numerous times, but alas your old mind is incapable of processing any new information. That you still believe in frozen-in fields just goes to show you stopped learning about 50-years-ago.


Nope, no currents, and nobody is claiming they are. And why would they not show up in all-sky maps? Invisible currents, are they? Lol. Even Peratt said we should see them. We don't. Likely why he gave up on his nonsense.

Jun 22, 2019
That you still believe in frozen-in fields just goes to show you stopped learning about 50-years-ago.


What is the magnetic Reynold's number, woo boy? The fact that you don't understand that shows that you have never so much as picked up a book on plasma physics, let alone understood it! Stick to Earth orbiting Saturn, mythology boy.

Jun 22, 2019
This Dust that Occupies these Plasmatic Clouds Occupying this Vacuum

Cantdrive
da schnied doubles down on stupid with two more moronic posts. Two moronic posts that contradict one another.

Just sayin'...

Is this what these plasmatic clouds have come down to?
Plasma
Is
Created
From this dust in this vacuum
Where this dust
Is predominantly
Protons and electrons
In combination
Forming hydrogen
And now
With
Trace elements from exploding supernovas

Cantdrive, have you been in this land of nod
In this land of we wily winky world of sleep
For when did you not notice?
These little inferences
For time immortal, cantdrive
You have been locked in mortal combat with your nemeses
TrollianDaSchneib and TrollianJonesDave
And until today, cantdrive
You have never noticed before
For what gives, cantdrive
These two trollians, TrollianDaSchneib and TrollianJonesDave
Are the same today?
As the day they came into your life
All those years ago!

Jun 22, 2019
Plasma
Is
Created
From this dust in this vacuum


Oh dear! Another ignoramus. What is it with these clowns? The less they seem to know about a subject, the more they seem to want to comment on it!

Jun 22, 2019
Cantdrive, Is this what these plasmatic clouds have come down to?

For there are reasons
This air has toxified, cantdrive
As cantdrive, this air is no more toxified
Than when you locked horns with your nemeses
All those years ago
There is a little inference
That diverted your attention, cantdrive
For you were this whacker mole, candrive
Which is why you did not notice this eternal toxified air
Because candrive
As you were content in your whacker mole existence
You were treated with these kid gloves
You were in this protective bubble
For cantdrive
All little boys grow up
That magic land of magic dragon's always comeths to an end
Foreth as this magic dragons green scales fell like rain
As his little friend came no more
You were that little friend, cantdrive
For that waseth that day this bubble burst cantdrive
That was that day you noticed this toxic air
For when you no more went a whacker moleing in those green fields of yore
This vile toxic air was crystal clear, cantdrive

Jun 23, 2019
Plasma
Is
Created
From this dust in this vacuum
Nope. The dust is created by SNe. It remains dust in all interstellar and intergalactic interactions. A star is required to provide the energy to break the dust up into gas, and only closeby. Interstellar and intergalactic interactions are by definition not closeby.

Plasma is created by irradiation of gas, it has nothing to do with dust.

Jun 23, 2019
What is the magnetic Reynold's number

A number which is used by plasma ignoramuses to erroneously model plasmas and which you think means the fields are actually frozen-in to the plasma in reality. Regardless, Alfvén was very clear when he said MHD/frozen-in fields (if they are valid at all) are only appropriate in dense plasmas such as solar plasma, SW plasma is frozen-in.

Jun 23, 2019
Plasma is created by irradiation of gas, it has nothing to do with dust.

Scientists lie according to da schnied,
http://lasp.color...plasmas/

BTW, the gas state is exceedingly rare in the Universe. Only under very unique circumstances does gas exist in a stable state.

Jun 23, 2019
What is the magnetic Reynold's number

A number which is used by plasma ignoramuses to erroneously model plasmas and which you think means the fields are actually frozen-in to the plasma in reality. Regardless, Alfvén was very clear when he said MHD/frozen-in fields (if they are valid at all) are only appropriate in dense plasmas such as solar plasma, SW plasma is **not** frozen-in.
edit

Jun 23, 2019
the gas state is exceedingly rare in the Universe. Only under very unique circumstances does gas exist in a stable state.
/me takes a deep breath and snickers.

Jun 23, 2019
https://www.thoug...-3072252

Interstellar gas, which is mostly just free elemental hydrogen and helium makes up most of the mass in the universe that can be directly measured.
You're lying again, @cantthink.

Jun 23, 2019
the gas state is exceedingly rare in the Universe. Only under very unique circumstances does gas exist in a stable state.
/me takes a deep breath and snickers.

Prove me wrong, 99.9% of the Universe exists in the plasma state but you somehow think gas is abundant. Bet you think the Universe revolves around the Earth too, don't ya?

Jun 23, 2019
https://www.thoughtco.com/composition-of-the-universe-3072252

Interstellar gas, which is mostly just free elemental hydrogen and helium makes up most of the mass in the universe that can be directly measured.
You're lying again, @cantthink.

LOL, thoughtco....

How about a NASA scientist from 20-years-ago;
"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
https://science.n...7sep99_1

Thoughtco....

Jun 23, 2019
Yet again you forget that plasma is just gas with electrons stripped away.

You're lying again, @cantthink.

And it certainly doesn't come from dust. So that's lying twice.

Jun 23, 2019
Convenient how much you forget, @cantthink. Looks like a bias to me.

Jun 23, 2019
I actually recommend everyone read that ThoughtCo article. Turns out, gas makes up 4% of the 5% of matter that is visible in the universe; that's 4/5 for those who can't do math, or 80%. The rest is all the stars and planets. And we can see it. And this is not new; we've known it for decades.

Jun 23, 2019
Incoming matter scenario musing

If the gas/matter is incoming then the core could be transferring angular momentum to the incoming matter and causing the matter to spiral by the spinning cores fields transferring a angular force to the matter via interaction? Then the core would lose spin when it transfers angular momentum to the matter. Does the gravitational field spin with the object that creates it? The magnetic field spins with the object creating it, right?

When the gas merges with the core does the incoming matter cause the core to gain spin? Because, when the incoming matters spiral trajectory collides with the core the angle the incoming matter is coming in at will not be a direct collision to the surface of the core, but rather an angled collision that would cause the core to gain spin?

So the core would transfer angular momentum to the incoming matter and lose spin, but would gain the spin back once the matter merged with the core. Maybe the core could gain greater spin

Jun 23, 2019
than it lost because gravity is accelerating the incoming matter...

Even without the field interaction and just using current ms theory will the incoming matter cause the core to gain spin?

Outgoing matter scenario musing
:)

Jun 23, 2019
Plasma Is Created from these Protons and Electrons

TrollianDaSchneib
Nope. The dust is created by SNe. It remains dust in all interstellar and intergalactic interactions. A star is required to provide the energy to break the dust up into gas, and only closeby. Interstellar and intergalactic interactions are by definition not closeby.
Plasma is created by irradiation of gas, it has nothing to do with dust

TrollianDaSchneib, this dusts occupying this vacuum
Are these
Pristine protons and pristine electrons
For these two atomic particles
In their pristine ionic form
These two ionic particles
From this humble beginning
Condensed under force
Of gravitational, electrical and magnetical attraction
To form these billions of Lys of plasmatic clouds
Linked by these billions of Lys of tenuous filaments
Between these plasmatic clouds
For these plasmatic clouds
Formed these stars
In these trillions of galaxies occupying this vacuum

Jun 23, 2019
When Hydrogen is an Ionic Proton

For hydrogen
That hath lost its scrumptious electron
Is ionic hydrogen
For if truth be told, TrollianDaSchneib
Ionic hydrogen
Is this humble proton
That occupies this vacuum
For however briefly
This hydrogen is separated from its scrumptious electron
This ionic hydrogen is no longer hydrogen
For
It
Is an ionic particle
A Proton

Jun 23, 2019
Transference of Angular Momentum

Beeds
If the gas/matter is incoming then the core could be transferring angular momentum to the incoming matter and causing the matter to spiral by the spinning cores fields transferring a angular force to the matter via interaction? Then the core would lose spin when it transfers angular momentum to the matter

For Beeds, the reason this core is spinning
Why this core is spinning
These ionic protons and electrons
Upon collapsing into clouds of plasma
When particles collapse
Over billions of Lys
These particle spin as they collapses
Foreth this is why everything occupying this vacuum spins
This is why all moons planets stars galaxies orbit
For Beeds
The core of all galaxies
Has the same angular momentum of these collapsing plasmatic clouds
For as a fully formed galaxy increases its mass
From further collapsing clouds
It is the total gravitational force of this collapsing cloud of plasma
Increasing this angular momentum of this galaxy

Jun 23, 2019
Plasma in this vacuum - when two combatants agree to disagree

Cantdrive
99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma

TrollianDaSchneib
Yet again you forget that plasma is just gas with electrons stripped away

This dusty hydrogen
For all that dominates in this vacuum
Are protons, electrons and hydrogen
And ionic hydrogen
Which coincidently
Is our little friend
The lonesome proton, having lost its scrumptious electron
Even more coincidently
Out of one dusty particle of hydrogen
From the creation of ionic hydrogen
Of the untold trillions of trillions of ionic hydrogen
Two ionic particles are born
Doubling these trillions upon trillions of ionic particles occupying this vacuum

Fore as we amalgamate TrollianDaSchneib and cantdrive into theoretical unity
TrollianDaSchneib cantdrive
99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma is just gas with electrons stripped away

TrollianDaSchneib and cantdrive
Agree to disagree
In all reality are actualy agreeing

Jun 23, 2019
So the core would transfer angular momentum to the incoming matter and lose spin, but would gain the spin back once the matter merged with the core. Maybe the core could gain greater spin
......so where is all the applied torque coming from that makes all these changes in momentum?

Jun 23, 2019
Turns out, gas makes up 4% of the 5% of matter that is visible in the universe; that's 4/5 for those who can't do math, or 80%. The rest is all the stars and planets. And we can see it. And this is not new; we've known it for decades.


According to schneibo math: 5%=80%

Let's see what schneibo math can do for this: 3+3/3=?

Jun 23, 2019
I actually recommend everyone read that ThoughtCo article. Turns out, gas makes up 4% of the 5% of matter that is visible in the universe; that's 4/5 for those who can't do math, or 80%. The rest is all the stars and planets. And we can see it. And this is not new; we've known it for decades.

LOL, what a moron this guy is...

Jun 23, 2019
LOL, what a moron this guy is...
I love it when I reduce them to incoherence, it means I won.

Jun 23, 2019
Let's see what schneibo math can do for this: 3+3/3=?

I know, I know! It's 4! 33.3% higher than da schnied's IQ.

Jun 23, 2019
LOL, what a moron this guy is...
I love it when I reduce them to incoherence, it means I won.

Delusion is the guy who thinks he wins when he claims 4% of 5% equals 80%. LOL!

Jun 23, 2019
So, try to change the subject when you lost much?

Just askin'.

As a reminder, links to science that says there is dust *inside* *intergalactic* filaments required here. Otherwise you're just talking out your ass again.

Jun 23, 2019
Yet again you forget that plasma is just gas with electrons stripped away.

Plasma is no more a gas than it is a solid or a liquid. As a matter of fact, plasma is a distinct state of matter the physics of which is completely different than that of gas. Gas physics are more relevant to liquids than they are to plasmas, the addition of EM force dominance to the matter of plasma makes the gas and plasma analogy more like apples and elephants.

Jun 23, 2019
As a reminder, links to science that says there is dust *inside* *intergalactic* filaments required here.

Been there, done that. See above Herschel observations, your denial of the observation just highlights your willful ignorance, obfuscation, and troll tactics.

Jun 23, 2019
No, you haven't done that. You showed quotes that say there is dust between us and the intergalactic filaments.

You're lying again, @cantthink.

Jun 23, 2019
Protons and Electrons Maketh a Star

TrollianDaSchneib
A star is required to provide the energy to break the dust up into gas

TrollianDaSchneib
When you say a star is required to break this dust up into gas
This soundeth like
Stars were first on this scene
In this biblical creation
Of Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic Egg
That once these plasmatic stars materialised in this biblical creation
These stars then broke this dust into a plasma

Foreth unto us came this Cosmic Egg
Where upon these protons and electrons emergethed from this beginning
As so it was
Foreth laid down in these biblical scrolls
These protons and scrumptious electrons went forth in to this wilderness and multiplied
For outeth these trillions there formed plasmatic cloudeths of plasma
Whereth was born these plasmatic stars
Foreth it was written
A star of Bethlehem
800,000 miles of plasma
93million miles from a planet
Whereth one night
A babe was born
In a stable
And so this fable is handed down these centuries

Jun 23, 2019
No, you haven't done that. You showed quotes that say there is dust between us and the intergalactic filaments.

You're lying again, @cantthink.

The troll's lies know no end;
"Dust obscures much of the star-formation activity in the early universe, but telescopes like Herschel can detect the infrared glow of this dust as it is heated by nascent stars."
The 'infrared glow caused by the heat of nascent stars' indicates proximity, unless of course you want to fall back on the magical properties of matter required by so much of your standard guesswork.

Jun 23, 2019
And it says exactly what I said it says.

Stop trying to double down. You're sussed.

Jun 23, 2019
If the dust is being heated by the stars in the filaments, then the dust is in the filament as well. If the dust is not in the filaments, it will be too distant from the nascent stars to be heated to the point for which it can be detected by Herschel. You should put the shovel down before you bury yourself completely. Right now you are well in excess of 4% of 5% of the 80% of dust in your hole.

Jun 23, 2019
Not interested in your attempts to conflate dust between us and the stars, and dust in the filaments. You're obviously clutching at straws, and still lying. Lying is boooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrring.

I think it's back on ignore for you for six months or so.

Jun 23, 2019
Not interested in your attempts to conflate dust between us and the stars, and dust in the filaments. You're obviously clutching at straws, and still lying. Lying is boooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrring.

I think it's back on ignore for you for six months or so.

da schnied sees he lost miserably so he's taking his toys and going home! And he is going to stop talking to me too!
da schnied doesn't like losing. LOL

Jun 23, 2019
Mathematics at these trollian universities

TrollianDaSchneib
I actually recommend everyone read that ThoughtCo article. Turns out, gas makes up 4% of the 5% of matter that is visible in the universe; that's 4/5 for those who can't do math, or 80%

For if you were born trollian
Lived your life as true trollians are want to live
For under bridges true trollians reside
Over streams and babbling brooks
For when courting couples tread warily over these bridges
For they can hear its trollian babbling trollian under foot
For this is where TrollianDaSchneib resides
Babbling trollian mathematics
For on these cool nights
One
Can hear babbling

TrollianDaSchneib
Turns out
Gas makes up 4%
Of the 5%
Of matter
That is visible
In the universe
That's 4/5 for those who can't do math
Or 80%
For this trollian mathematics
That if you take the 4 from 4%
And divide it by
The 5 from 5%
4/5 = 80%

For this is true trollian mathematics
Known only to trollians
Such as TrollianDaSchneib

Jun 23, 2019
@Da Schneib
@cantdrive85.

@Da Schneib, be reasonable:

1) If there was so much dust in the 'early' epoch of (alleged) Big Bang universe, then where did it go, if not into 'early' filamentary formations due to (also alleged) 'exotic' Dark Matter which was supposed to attract ordinary baryonic matter to form stars/galaxies there in the first place; as your own wiki reference clearly claims:
In the standard model of the evolution of the universe, galactic filaments form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter.[4] It is thought that this dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this "normal" matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters.
Especially note the last sentence.

2) There are many cogent scientifically demonstrable reasons why plasma is called "3rd state of matter" distinct from gas, liquid, solid states.

Ok? :)

Jun 23, 2019
ERRATA: Apologies for the typo; didn't catch it in time for edit period submission: that "3rd state of matter" should obviously have read "4th state of matter". Thanks. :)

Jun 23, 2019
Sez schneibo:

Turns out, gas makes up 4% of the 5% of matter that is visible in the universe; that's 4/5 for those who can't do math, or 80%. The rest is all the stars and planets. And we can see it. And this is not new; we've known it for decades.


According to schneibo math: 5%=80%

Still hanging on to this ol boy? Just askin' ?

Jun 23, 2019
ERRATA: Apologies for the typo; didn't catch it in time for edit period submission: that "3rd state of matter" should obviously have read "4th state of matter". Thanks. :)

The Universe consists of 99.99% plasma, it should be the 1st state of matter.

Jun 23, 2019
@cantdrive85.
ERRATA: Apologies for the typo; didn't catch it in time for edit period submission: that "3rd state of matter" should obviously have read "4th state of matter". Thanks. :)

The Universe consists of 99.99% plasma, it should be the 1st state of matter.
True enough. I long ago pointed out to all here on both 'sides' that the early state of the universe was a highly energetic Quark Gluon PLASMA until baryonic-plasmas formed.

ps: I think it was always understood by those in the field that the "4th" label for the baryonic-plasma state-of-matter indicated the ORDER OF DISCOVERY/REALISATION of same by modern scientists, and NOT the order of occurrence of that state of matter in the universe. Cheers all. :)

Jun 23, 2019
@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Cher it looks like you are coming round to the mainstream after all.

I long ago pointed out to all here on both 'sides' that the early state of the universe was a highly energetic Quark Gluon PLASMA until baryonic-plasmas formed.


Early state he sounds like a universe with the finite beginning. And Quark Gluon PLASMA until baryons sounds like the regular old big bang theory,,,,, it don't jibe with your usual foolishment.

Jun 23, 2019
No. That can't be. We all know of RealityChecks's aversion to the Big Bang Theory (and I don't mean the TV show). According to RC, the Universe has always existed without end, isn't that right, RC?

Jun 24, 2019
And of course, it doesn't say anything about gas and dust *in the filament,* but about dust in the early universe. You're just doubling down on the lie.
says Schneib

https://arxiv.org...0604.pdf

Mentions gas and dust within filaments. Why do you LIE all the time when the evidence that CD85 has presented is verifiable?

Jun 24, 2019
LOL, what a moron this guy is...
I love it when I reduce them to incoherence, it means I won.
says Schneib

Again, Der Schneib has won yet another "BOOB of the YEAR" necktie award.

Jun 24, 2019
@Granville
"The core of all galaxies
Has the same angular momentum of these collapsing plasmatic clouds"

But'eth, why should incoming external matter have the same directional angular momentum as the core spin direction? Somehow'eth the core must be telling the matter which angle/direction to move. I can only think of three ways to accomplish that.
1. Spinning fields transferring angular momentum to the disc.
2. Friction originating at the core and moving outward through layers of the matter in the disc. Friction propagating outward would cause the disc to spin in the same direction as the core. Friction can also heat the matter in the disc.
3. Curved spacetime, the incoming matter following a spiral curve. Which I think is the MS theory?

If its outgoing matter in the cloud then the matter leaving the core forming the disc would naturally inherit the cores angular momentum or spin direction.

Jun 24, 2019
@Benni
"......so where is all the applied torque coming from that makes all these changes in momentum?"

From the core somehow...

Jun 24, 2019
Gravity can transmit torque. We know that since Gravity Probe B. It's called "frame dragging."

Actually, any force that is not centrally directed onto a mass can transmit torque to it. That's why yoyos work. Not to mention gyroscopes.

Jun 24, 2019
"I can only think of three ways to accomplish that."

Maybe 1 more option.
4. Tidal acceleration.

I'll check out frame dragging, thanks.

Jun 24, 2019
I wouldn't call it "tidal acceleration." "Frame dragging" is a better description and is the accepted technical term.

And it means just what you would think it means; objects in orbit around another object that is rotating experience an acceleration along the line of the orbit, with the strength depending upon the strength of the gravity field, and upon the distance from the rotating body.

Jun 24, 2019
I could be more exact if you have the physics chops. The acceleration depends upon the vectors of the rotation and the orbit. For example, a polar orbit will precess instead of being speeded up or slowed down, and an orbit vectored in the same direction of the spin will speed up whereas one against it will slow down.

Jun 24, 2019
@Benni
"......so where is all the applied torque coming from that makes all these changes in momentum?"

From the core somehow...
.......gravity?

Depends on how gravitational force and positional vectors follow along the same line from one object to another will gravity create TORQUE, it is generally accepted as zero for gravity. You need to learn how to solve cross product equations to follow how this works, it's not high school physics & cannot be taught within the limited constraints of a chatroom like this.

Jun 24, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Cher it looks like you are coming round to the mainstream after all.

I long ago pointed out to all here on both 'sides' that the early state of the universe was a highly energetic Quark Gluon PLASMA until baryonic-plasmas formed.
Early state he sounds like a universe with the finite beginning. And Quark Gluon PLASMA until baryons sounds like the regular old big bang theory,,,,, it don't jibe with your usual foolishment.
If only your reading comprehension was as evident as your trolling/bot-voting is, mate. :)

You obviously missed all those times I posted about an INFINITE, ETERNALLY RECYCLING universe wherein thing arises, evolve, devolves back to/from underlying QUANTUM PLASMA energy-space states states, repeating ad-infinitum.

In THAT CONTEXT, "early" relates to RECYCLING EPOCHS of innumerable LOCALISED 'observable universe' volumes.

Ie, NOT Big Bang CONTEXT of THE 'universe-BEGINNING-from-NOTHING' silliness. :)

ps: Why do you do it, Ira?

Jun 24, 2019
From our point of view there would be little if any difference between a state of the universe where it contains only quark-gluon plasma, and a Big Bang. However, conflating that with a statement that there is some data that indicates a cyclical universe is incorrect. The big problem with the cyclical conjecture is that there isn't enough mass-energy in the universe to stop eternal expansion, which would mean this is a special cycle- the last one.

In other words, this is a belief, not science. Because if it were science there'd be evidence. And after the universe had been changed to a QGP, there would be no evidence left.

Jun 25, 2019
The big problem with the cyclical conjecture is that there isn't enough mass-energy in the universe to stop eternal expansion, which would mean this is a special cycle
........anything that is expanding needs a continual input of energy to keep the process in motion. Eternal expansion requires an eternal input of energy to keep it continually expanding, just the reverse of what you stated that energy input is required to reverse expansion.

Just inflate a balloon to realize the energy input required for inflating it, now compare that to poking it with a pin to deflate it.

Jun 25, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Consider the BB-biases which led to illogical 'THE universal beginning/expansion etc' furphy.

And also that early equations assuming that THE universe 'must' either 'expand' or 'contract' or 'remain steady state' were formed in the context of the (then prevalent) belief that the universe consisted ONLY of 'our galaxy'.

Whence the insidious unscientific THE ''finite, expanding/contracting etc universe" MEME which led 'modern' cosmology astray. :)

For we NOW understand the universe is NOT 'finite', but INFINITE: hence OLD/NON-SEQUITUR concepts such as THE 'contracting/expanding/steady-state' universe are now MOOT.

Also, until GR, the 'expansion/contraction etc' equations/interpretations were meant to 'predict' ONLY the behaviour of the (then) VISIBLE ENERGY-MATTER CONTENT/DISTRIBUTION which was ASSUMED to be 'bounded' by a THE (our MW) galaxy 'finite universe!

We NOW realise universal energy-space is infinite in extent, recycling at ALL SCALES/EPOCHS. :)

Jun 25, 2019
For we NOW understand the universe is NOT 'finite', but INFINITE: hence OLD/NON-SEQUITUR concepts such as THE 'contracting/expanding/steady-state' universe are now MOOT.
.....you've got this a little bit backwards.

The Universe is a stellar island suspended within the infinite expanse of space into which we cannot view what is beyond the boundary of the Universe. You can't prove this is wrong because there is no observational evidence to the contrary. The overwhelming EVIDENCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is PROOF the Universe is finite, ENTROPY RULES.

Jun 25, 2019
@Benni.
For we NOW understand the universe is NOT 'finite', but INFINITE: hence OLD/NON-SEQUITUR concepts such as THE 'contracting/expanding/steady-state' universe are now MOOT.
you've got this a little bit backwards. The Universe is a stellar island suspended within the infinite expanse of space into which we cannot view what is beyond the boundary of the Universe. You can't prove this is wrong because there is no observational evidence to the contrary. The overwhelming EVIDENCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is PROOF the Universe is finite, ENTROPY RULES.
You are making the same unwarranted assumption that cosmologists made back at the beginning of the last century. They 'understood' THE universe as a collection of stars bounded by/limited to the extent of our Milky Way 'island'. Then Hubble observed the greater galactic population extending billions of lightyears to observable horizon.

THE universe is NOT limited by their/your limited 'understanding', @Benni. :)

Jun 25, 2019
Amusingly da schnied glosses over his utter failure regarding his claims above and moves on ignoring the egg on his face. Then there is his 4% of 5% = 80% nonsense. You'd think he might show some humility.

Jun 25, 2019
You are making the same unwarranted assumption that cosmologists made back at the beginning of the last century. They 'understood' THE universe as a collection of stars bounded by/limited to the extent of our Milky Way 'island'. Then Hubble observed the greater galactic population extending billions of lightyears to observable horizon.

THE universe is NOT limited by their/your limited 'understanding', @Benni.
.....the Universe is limited by the extent of distribution of energy (ENTROPY) within itself, that is it must of necessity have an impenetrable boundary according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics......maybe you have different evidence?

Jun 25, 2019
@Benni.
You are making the same unwarranted assumption that cosmologists made back at the beginning of the last century. They 'understood' THE universe as a collection of stars bounded by/limited to the extent of our Milky Way 'island'. Then Hubble observed the greater galactic population extending billions of lightyears to observable horizon.
the Universe is limited by the extent of distribution of energy (ENTROPY) within itself, that is it must of necessity have an impenetrable boundary according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics......maybe you have different evidence?
Again, you miss the unwarranted assumption you are making. If the universe is not finite, then there is no 'boundary in either space or evolutionary epochs for the energy-space to recycle indefinitely.

See? Infinite universe effectively represents an 'infinite reservoir' of energy-space; without bound except in arbitrarily delineated 'transient/localised' volume/epoch such as an observable universe. :)

Jun 25, 2019
People may understand that condensation of mass into asteroids, planets, stars, etc. and their orbits, is gravity-driven, yet they want to talk about thermodynamics controlling evolution for some odd reason. Thermodynamics is agnostic on gravity.

Gravity is counter-entropic if you ask me, matter, at the low-energy end, is retroreflective to gravity, this conservation technique is like rewarding in Hebbian networks. Consider an asteroid that is formed like an octahedron at low kinetic energies, it has the form of eight corner-reflectors, an omni-retroreflector, and this structure somewhat-holographically belies the low-energy alignments and kinetics of the asteroid's constituent gravitationally-omniretroreflective nucleons.

Jun 25, 2019
Again, you miss the unwarranted assumption you are making. If the universe is not finite, then there is no 'boundary in either space or evolutionary epochs for the energy-space to recycle indefinitely.

See? Infinite universe effectively represents an 'infinite reservoir' of energy-space; without bound except in arbitrarily delineated 'transient/localised' volume/epoch such as an observable universe.
........Unreal psycho-babble. Ever take a Thermodynamics course, take the final exam & get a grade? What was it, the grade?

Jun 25, 2019
Gravity operates a lot like negative kinetic energy, negative energy is strange at times, like holes with practically negative mass that always want to go the opposite way of mobile charges with positive mass.

Entropy-focused people try to look at a gravity-generated concentrated gravity-plus-heat source and talk about all the originally-random stuff that has now been further randomized somehow somewhere now located far away, spread apart like a lonely orphan horde. Because they care about it religiously, it seems.

Jun 25, 2019
@Benni.
Again, you miss the unwarranted assumption you are making. If the universe is not finite, then there is no 'boundary in either space or evolutionary epochs for the energy-space to recycle indefinitely.

See? Infinite universe effectively represents an 'infinite reservoir' of energy-space; without bound except in arbitrarily delineated 'transient/localised' volume/epoch such as an observable universe.
........Unreal psycho-babble. Ever take a Thermodynamics course, take the final exam & get a grade? What was it, the grade?
An infinite universe is not a 'closed system', @Benni. It's operations at quantum level and above are in constant process up/down the spatial/energy/configurational scales. Only a selected locality delineated arbitrarily can be analysed for its own lifetime evolutions within that volume as a 'thermodynamic system'. Please drop your misunderstood 'domain of applicability' of the thermodynamical analysis methods/principles. Thanks. :)

Jun 25, 2019
Sez schneibo:

Turns out, gas makes up 4% of the 5% of matter that is visible in the universe; that's 4/5 for those who can't do math, or 80%. The rest is all the stars and planets. And we can see it. And this is not new; we've known it for decades.


Still hanging on to this ol boy? Just askin' ?

Jun 25, 2019
It's data. Are you denying data, @Whyde?

Keep science. See the comment guidelines.

Jun 25, 2019
@Benni...An infinite universe is not a 'closed system', @Benni. It's operations at quantum level and above are in constant process up/down the spatial/energy/configurational scales. Only a selected locality delineated arbitrarily can be analysed for its own lifetime evolutions within that volume as a 'thermodynamic system'. Please drop your misunderstood 'domain of applicability' of the thermodynamical analysis methods/principles. Thanks. :)
says RC

An "Infinite Universe" is only the product of a highly imaginative mind. IF such a Universe existed, it would eventually sustain a 'breaking down' of its sections or INTO sections, so that it could not go on continually in one piece, but instead, in many pieces. Then each section/piece would have to grow/expand to infinity where the same thing would happen to each piece. The expansion/growth of each would again sustain a breaking up/down into smaller pieces. It would happen again and again ad infinitum. The process is unfeasible

Jun 26, 2019
@RC
The Spherical concept for the Universe is so much finer and follows the observed spherical attributes/physicalities of Stars, planets, moons, 1 and 2-dimensional drawings of circles and 3 dimensional globes. IOW it is a most natural form. Within a sphere Universe, it is far easier to recycle all Matter. The Stars, galaxies, clusters all follow a path that orbits the exact centre of the sphere like a herd of sheep or like a merry-go-round.
All the Stars and planets are in orbit around the centre of their respective galaxy; and all of galaxy clusters orbit around the Sphere, not in a straight line but at a very slight angle. Clockwise or counter-clockwise? That may never be determined.

Jun 26, 2019
For we NOW understand the universe is NOT 'finite', but INFINITE: hence OLD/NON-SEQUITUR concepts such as THE 'contracting/expanding/steady-state' universe are now MOOT.
.....you've got this a little bit backwards.

The Universe is a stellar island suspended within the infinite expanse of space into which we cannot view what is beyond the boundary of the Universe. You can't prove this is wrong because there is no observational evidence to the contrary. The overwhelming EVIDENCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is PROOF the Universe is finite, ENTROPY RULES.
says Benni

So do Cats, by the way. LOL
That infinite expanse of Space that encases the Stellar island that we call the 'Universe' would also have to be a Vacuum, even more vacuous than the one that surrounds interstellar and intergalactic Space.
The Vacuum outside of the Universe would also have Quantum Particles within it, which are the physical SUPPORT for our Spherical Universe.

Jun 26, 2019
Oh, and BTW @RC, you got it backwards.

They don't tweak the data to fit the models. They tweak the models to fit the data. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck...

Jun 26, 2019
Gas Spinning as Galactic Dust is Spinning

For it is told
In the fables
That as you go yonder into this vacuum
15Billlion Lys years yonder
There are in this infinite vacuum
Trillion upon trillion of galaxies equally spaced
Fore it is told in these fables of old
These protons and their scrumptious electrons
Pervade this infinite vacuum
Fore it is told through attraction of these four forces
Electrical magnetism gravitational electromagnetism
These protons and their scrumptious electrons
Through their mutual attraction
Break into billion Ly groups
Where each groups orbit each group in billion Ly orbital's
Where each group further collapse in to starry stared galaxies
Spinning with this angular momentum of these collapsing clouds

For the observant amongst us will note
This spinning matter is not flying apart with centrifugal force
These spinning galaxies are not flying apart with centrifugal force
This 15Billion Ly Galactic Cloud is Collapsing

Jun 26, 2019
This 15billion Ly Quandary

For how does one have a 15Billion Ly Cloud?
On the one hand
And
Trillions upon trillions of galaxies created from that 15Billion Ly cloud
On the other hand
All within this 15Billion Ly cloud
If
As the fables of old are proclaiming
This 15Billion Ly cloud is expanding

For these dear old Albert progenies
Descended from these giants of old
Ingrained in this knowledge of these ancient genius's
Step forward to this plate
In elaboration of inky textualisms
The physics of how matter theorised to be expanding
Where
For all to see
Trillion upon trillions of galaxies pervade this vacuum
In further orbital collapsing collisions
Formed from this 15Billion Ly cloud

The Question
How does a tenuous cloud form trillion upon trillions of galaxies and further numbers of even denser stars?
When it is proclaimed this 15Billion Ly tenuous cloud is expanding?

Foreth this is this mindset of the century
An expanding tenuous cloud collapsing into highly dense stars

Jun 26, 2019
It would happen again and again ad infinitum. The process is unfeasible
.....it's unfeasible alright & let me explain why, it's because there is no observational evidence that NEW MASS is being created on a continuing basis. No NEW mass/energy has been added to the CLOSED SYSTEM of the ENTROPIC UNIVERSE.

If new MASS/ENERGY is not added to the system it cannot expand, yet the Dark Energy hypothesis makes just the opposite claim without explaining from where Dark Energy derives it's origin. The DE theorists claim DE will power the Universe into infinity but they never bother to explain where the INFINITE MASS to be transformed to ENERGY will come from to fuel this unending expansion.

Motion requires a continual INPUT of energy from a fuel source, just like your car. I'd challenge anyone to dump some DE into your gas tank/battery & see how far you get in your car.

Jun 26, 2019
All the Stars and planets are in orbit around the centre of their respective galaxy; and all of galaxy clusters orbit around the Sphere, not in a straight line but at a very slight angle. Clockwise or counter-clockwise? That may never be determined.
The Universe is a barycenter of stellar movement, basically everything orbits something else. Within this barycenter of motion, half of the galaxies are approaching one another while half are receding from one another, it's all about the orbital mechanics of gravitating bodies over long distances.

There is no central mass at the exact center of the barycenter of the Universe.

Jun 26, 2019
>Egg
Clockwise or counter-clockwise? That may never be determined.
.......Yes it has been determined, exactly half are rotating in opposite directions, if this didn't happen the Universe would be out of balance & the unbalanced wobble of kinetic energy would blow the system apart, just as an unbalanced tire on your car would do if if don't keep it BALANCED with wheel weights.

Jun 26, 2019
"Clockwise or counter-clockwise?"

If you look at it from the top down and it's spinning clockwise then when you look from the bottom up it's counter-clockwise.

Jun 27, 2019
>Egg
Clockwise or counter-clockwise? That may never be determined.
.......Yes it has been determined, exactly half are rotating in opposite directions, if this didn't happen the Universe would be out of balance & the unbalanced wobble of kinetic energy would blow the system apart, just as an unbalanced tire on your car would do if if don't keep it BALANCED with wheel weights.


More bullshit from @Benni

Jun 27, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you got it backwards. They don't tweak the data to fit the models. They tweak the models to fit the data. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck...
You are still such a trusting idealist, mate. Very endearing (in a 'human being' kind of way). :)

The Scientific Method is all about PRESCRIBING that objective and 'non-trusting' is ALWAYS what we SCIENTISTS should be (as Bicep2 fiasco should have reminded everyone who was paying attention to what happened when the 'modelling' and 'in-built assumptions' etc led those 'analysts' and 'conclusions' astray)!

In reality, these analyses involve starting assumptions built into models that 'direct/inform' the observations; then 'fit' data/probabilities according to 'consistency' to model. If that consistency is not there, then 'analysis' proceeds to further 'play with things' until either it 'fits' expectations from the model OR the model is 'modified'....OR (in extremis) scrapped. :)

Jul 02, 2019
"Clockwise or counter-clockwise?"

If you look at it from the top down and it's spinning clockwise then when you look from the bottom up it's counter-clockwise.
says beeds

Excellent point.

Jul 02, 2019
>Egg
Clockwise or counter-clockwise? That may never be determined.
.......Yes it has been determined, exactly half are rotating in opposite directions, if this didn't happen the Universe would be out of balance & the unbalanced wobble of kinetic energy would blow the system apart, just as an unbalanced tire on your car would do if if don't keep it BALANCED with wheel weights.
says Benni

Sounds a bit like the Coriolis Effect that is experienced in the northern and southern hemispheres on Earth except that both hemispheres are rotating in the same direction.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more