my theory

MeteorWayne · Sep 19, 2007

Not really. The whole solar system (99+ % the sun) is orbiting the barycenter of the galaxy. Any changes that occur within the solar system are many magnitudes below anything that would effect that. Looking at the big picture, all the planets, Asteroid and Kuiper belts, scattered disk objects and Oort cloud orbit the sun. The galaxy make no difference. (It does, but with a really really really tiny effect.) However, for our solar system, which is 99.5% the sun, we orbit around the center of mass of the galaxy. The earth is such a tiny part of the solar system, it has no measureable effect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 19, 2007

The orbit of a stellar system is not the same as the "draining the bathtub" scenario. Over these distances, gravity from the galaxy's center of mass is so small it can be ignored for the lifetime of the Milky Way. In the bathtub there's a gravity effect a billion times larger than that in the galaxy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

mytheory · Sep 19, 2007

So you believe that the center of our milky way has such a small gravitational pull on our solar system, that it will never affect us for the entire life of the milky way? That's a big statement! How can you be so sure of this? In the bath tubb scenario at first the forces on the rubber ball are so small you don't see it move anywhere, but eventually as the water drains, it moves toward the drain hole. Who's to say that we 're not in this same stage now and that the center of our galaxy is pulling us in? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> @LEX </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Sep 19, 2007

It isn't only that the center of our galaxy exerts a small influence, it's that we're orbitting said center. Unless we're radiating away energy (gravity waves anyone ?) then we'll continue to orbit. Your rubber ball is not in orbit (so to speak) and so it does get sucked in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 20, 2007

Well, I can be sure because we are orbiting the center of our galaxy. And we do not really orbit the black hole at the center; as large as it is, it's only a small part of the mass of the Milky Way. We actually orbit a point called the barycenter, which is the center of mass of the whole galaxy. Not sure we can determine exactly where that is, but the black hole is so small it's unlikely that the center of mass lies within the black hole itself. So we are orbiting, not being pulled in. Even if the black hole is absorbing gas, and the rare star, the galaxy's center of mass (and it's shape) is not changed significantly, so we go on our merry way, round and round. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

derekmcd · Sep 20, 2007

I think the term barycenter works best with two objects. Trying to find the barycenter of 100+ billion might be a slightly daunting task <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 20, 2007

I didn't say it would be easy to find, but it is the correct term. In fact, the sun itself orbits around the barycenter of the solar system. Sometimes, that point is even outside of the surface of the sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Sep 20, 2007

As in the case of the barycentre between the Sun & Jupiter. Barycentre is approx 742,000 KM above the Sun's surface. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

derekmcd · Sep 20, 2007

Very true indeed. I didn't mean it as a point of contestation. And, I do understand your point in that the geographical or symmetrical center of the galaxy may not be the center of mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 20, 2007

It is inside the sun most of the time, and always very close, since the sun is > 99.5% of the solar system's mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

vandivx · Sep 20, 2007

I admit the idea of galaxies being like some kind of monstrous maelstrom sucking in everything in galaxy is fetching imagination but gravity as we know it couldn't possibly be so violent (powerfull) force over such distances to give rise to such distinct fan like effect on the galactic scales (at least that's what my intuition tells me) I liked your idea of the bathtub experiment though, I thought about emulating the whole galaxy fan like shape based on your description and to that end I cut the rubber mat my mum keeps in front of the bathtub into many little pieces and placed them into the bathtub filled to the brim with water. I proceeded with this after some little hesitation since I felt she would see how important experiment that was initially I had a big mass of rubber scum floating at random on water in no way resembling any galaxy, not even spherical or eliptical never mind one with developped arms but as experiment proceeded about two thirds of the way down the particles began to take on some shape faintly resembling a roundish galaxy as I was leaning over the edge of the bathtub peering intently down into it waiting for the galactic arms to beging developing I didn't notice the bathroom doors opening and I almost fell into the black hole in the center of my galaxy as I recieved a box on my ear that my mum dealt me and she didn't want to hear any explaining and called in my dad who promptly boxed me on the other ear while muttering something about plugged up siphon... my experiment was thus forcefully ended just as it seemed my developing galaxy was begining to show the tell tale sign of fan shaped arms which should have proved the theory, alas the proof will have to wait now, no wait, I see shower curtain which is manifestly made of matterial that will float on water and my what a much larger galaxy that will make harnesing the stronger proof still if possible, surely they will understand... vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mytheory · Sep 21, 2007

Well thanks for attempting to try the experiment I wrote about a couple days agoAfter thinking about the scenario for a day I realized that it wasn't a good way to replicate a solar system being pulled in to a blck hole. 1 gallaxies aren't filled with water and 2 in space there is no air, and this experiment had both... oh well I'll think of another way to prove my theory! I just haven't thought of it yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> @LEX </div>

mytheory · Sep 21, 2007

it may be that black holes don't need to grow and do not have to be large to be powerful and have a substantial affect on the galaxy around them. If black holes compact stars, planets etc. in to a very small space for whatever reason, this act alone indicates that they are overwhelmingly powerful the way they are with out having a "large" circumference. When it comes down to it, no one on this planet knows what the hell black holes are, where they come from or what there purpose is.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> @LEX </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 21, 2007

Actually we do know. Black holes are concentrations of mass dense enough that the local gravity creates an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They come from mass. Gas stars and planets (maybe even dark matter) compacted into a relatively small area. Their purpose is to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

wurf · Sep 21, 2007

Take heart, vanDivX. I'm sure Newton and Einstein had their ears boxed sometime. Galileo certainly did.

mytheory · Sep 21, 2007

"Their purpose is to be." Wow that's really deep man! That seems like a pretty vague definition of why they exist, no offense! But hey you're the expert and I'm just a novice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> @LEX </div>

ashish27 · Sep 22, 2007

mytheory, im really really impressed with your way of thinking and questioning. people like you are really rare these days. Here's what I know. See, we know what black holes do: as a poster earlier told you that they have got an escape velocity higher than the speed of light and that is correct. But to your question "why they exist" its difficult to answer. See, when a star collapses under its own weight and gravity a black hole/white dwarf/neutron star is formed. But to ask the question why something exists in the Universe is difficult to answer beacuse it takes us into science vs theology conflict. why do stars exist? why do galaxies? why the big bang happened? the last one is the million dollar question today in physics and anyone who even partly answers that will for sure win the nobel prize. The Universe is a chain of events one leading into another. Its a chain of reasoning, one reason leading to another. And this takes us back to the question why it all started? why? why? why? To that my friend, I've got no answer. Cheers <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

MeteorWayne · Sep 22, 2007

Well as ashish27 said, that's a pretty deep question, beyond pure physics. They exist because the universe exists. Why does the Universe exist? As he said, we have no real answer to that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

derekmcd · Sep 22, 2007

My take on MeteorWayne's statement, "Their purpose is to be," is that they have no purpose. They are simply a consequence of previous events. For something to have a purpose, it must consciously be able to willfully alter it's future with no input or direction from it's surroundings or any other outiside sources. Black holes are theorized to exist in their current incarnation via direct observation of their surrounding space... Their purpose is irrelevant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

mytheory · Sep 22, 2007

Why does the universe exist... the ultimate question for humans to figure out! We may never know, and maybe we're not meant to know the answer! Sometimes I think that our sun is like the nucleus of a cell and the planets/ moons etc. are like protons and neutrons, going round and around until the sun/nucleus dies. we may be just be a larger version of the cellular world, and there are other species out there that dwarf us like we do cells and such... that's one of my theories <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> @LEX </div>

adrenalynn · Sep 23, 2007

I'm not certain this would be an acceptable application of Occam's Razor, so I hesitate to introduce it (although I just did... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) - My counter question(s): - Why must the universe have a unique reason or purpose for its existance? - What is made simpler by it having a purpose to its existance? - What is easier about having this reason than simply existing as a result of a causal-effect chain of related and/or unrelated events? - Does any big "problem" get solved by having a specific purpose? I'm not sure that I see an obvious (to me) answer to these. If I'm missing something, I'd love to go there. If I can't visualize the answer to these questions, then it's probably not a direction I'd personally spend a lot of time exploring. Personally, I see too many cosmological mysteries that, when answered, would simplify a whole bunch of inter-related mysteries. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

derekmcd · Sep 23, 2007

"nucleus of a cell" and "cellular world"... Might you mean nucleus of an atom and atomic world? The only thing similar between an atom and a stellar system are the artistic renderings you might find in some science books. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

ashish27 · Sep 23, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Why does the universe exist... the ultimate question for humans to figure out! <hr /></blockquote> Yes, it is indeed the ultimate question. Every human should focus on it. Everything else is trivial.

adrenalynn · Sep 23, 2007

Yes, it is indeed the ultimate question. Every human should focus on it. Everything else is trivial. Why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 23, 2007

Indeed, in the big picture, what difference does it really make? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

my theory

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

mytheory

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

vandivx

Guest

mytheory

Guest

mytheory

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

wurf

Guest

mytheory

Guest

ashish27

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

mytheory

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

ashish27

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page