NASA supercomputer finds billions of comets mimicking the Milky Way's shape: 'The universe seems to like spirals!

[Admin]

Astronomers have discovered that billions of comets in an icy shell around the solar system called the Oort Cloud mimic the spiral structure of the Milky Way.

NASA supercomputer finds billions of comets mimicking the Milky Way's shape: 'The universe seems to like spirals! : Read more

 

[Classical Motion]

How many turns per orbit does that spiral have. How many turns per orbit do the spirals of Saturn rings have? And why can’t we find photos of them? They use to be easy to pull up.

Helix. Not spiral. All planets and moons are one turn helix orbits. 90 degrees to their orbit.

A spiral moves in and out, a helix only changes direction.

I saw this years ago of Io’s orbital path thru it’s debris field. Can’t find those photos either. A easily seen one turn helical orbit. The track of an orbit. Just like a cloud chamber. Only closed in an orbit.

The directional acceleration vectors of this dynamic is much different than an elliptical orbit.

We need new gravity equations. And new simulations. And perhaps a new concept of a “stable” orbit.

Just an observation.

 

[Western Sage]

Astronomers have discovered that billions of comets in an icy shell around the solar system called the Oort Cloud mimic the spiral structure of the Milky Way.

NASA supercomputer finds billions of comets mimicking the Milky Way's shape: 'The universe seems to like spirals! : Read more

To this layman, it seems the spiral structure is very similar to eddies that form on edges and against obstacles in moving water and gas. Perhaps someone knowledgable in fluid or aero dynamics can help us understand this feature.

 

[ARTGLICK]

Doesn't the existence of this spiral suggest a large mass object at the center? Much like a spiral galaxy, has anyone suggested that the object could be a black hole, in this case obviously a intermediate sized one?

How about an Oort version of the fabled Kuiper object Planet 9?

This article misses the point by not offering prevailing conjectures of how this structure formed.

 

[George²]

For context, the Oort cloud is a spherical shell of comets and icy bodies that exist out beyond the orbit of Neptune,

after the Kuiper belt.

I just finished the sentence so there was no information gap.

 

[billslugg]

They didn't "discover" anything, they predicted something. They did a simulation and got a spiral in the computer. They will now figure out a way to verify it by observation. The problem is how small the bodies are, how dark they are and how far away they are. They might be mapped by occultation, but that's about it.

 

[bolide]

They didn't "discover" anything, they predicted something. They did a simulation and got a spiral in the computer. They will now figure out a way to verify it by observation. The problem is how small the bodies are, how dark they are and how far away they are. They might be mapped by occultation, but that's about it.

That's my understanding. This spiral has not been seen as yet in any observational data. They created a computer simulation of the Oort cloud, and found a spiral in the simulation.

 

[Helio]

Yes, even an object the size of Jupiter at about 10,000 AU is too dim for even the HST. The JWST can see “warm” objects ar greater distances in IR, but small objects are cold.

 

[JustThinkAboutIt]

Why is the Oort Cloud only located on one side of the solar system? Why is there a spiral pattern emerging? Uhhh, because everything in our Solar System is being dragged by the Sun, we do not revolve around the sun, from our perspective on Earth we do, but in actuality we are Spiraling behind the Sun as it moves through the cosmos. Problem solved, I don't need a Nobel prize. Use your heads people , jeez, I knew exactly what was happening as soon as I started reading this article.

Also going to Mars is a one way trip, because we do not possess the technology to make the return trip, ships would need to move faster than the sun moving through space to "catch back up" with Earth.

 

[COLGeek]

Why is the Oort Cloud only located on one side of the solar system? Why is there a spiral pattern emerging? Uhhh, because everything in our Solar System is being dragged by the Sun, we do not revolve around the sun, from our perspective on Earth we do, but in actuality we are Spiraling behind the Sun as it moves through the cosmos. Problem solved, I don't need a Nobel prize. Use your heads people , jeez, I knew exactly what was happening as soon as I started reading this article.

Also going to Mars is a one way trip, because we do not possess the technology to make the return trip, ships would need to move faster than the sun moving through space to "catch back up" with Earth.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that prize. Your theory is simply wrong.

 

[Classical Motion]

One can find a lot of artist’s renditions of the outer solar system. From what I’ve read, most of our system lies beyond Pluto’s orbit. I’m not sure what they base those concepts on, perhaps radar. I don’t think many can be spotted with optics. Maybe lots of small lines show up. I haven’t seen any photos. Anyhow from what they paint there are thousands if not millions of “icy” objects out there. It looks dense. They appear to emphasize it.

How much water is that? Or how much water was that? And supposedly, lots of debris from our formation. Maybe some of it is Mar’s water.

Was/is that region a resource cabinet, or a garbage dump? Does the solar wind accelerate thru it too? Or maybe decelerated and accumulate there?

From what I’ve read we really don’t know much about it. From what little entry into it, it seems to be pretty sparse. Of course density is relative.

I would rather see a survey of that region more than a man Mars trip. But that’s just me.

We would feel pretty silly if we found a lost planet remains and/or civilization out there. Even worse a derelict alien craft/probe.

We haven’t seen the backyard.

We have found that life can live with just heat and not light. A heated dark planet might have a different kind of life tree. I doubt they are there now, but maybe in the past.

 

[COLGeek]

Seems the assumption, of when modeled, is largely based on our understanding of fluid dynamics. Sure, there are multiple examples of spirals/vortexes to draw from, as well as stellar observations. However, this is sill a guess and hardly definitive and could be wrong, partly coincidental, or eventually proven correct.

Much more time and study are required.

 

[contrarian]

We have found that life can live with just heat and not light. A heated dark planet might have a different kind of life tree. I doubt they are there now, but maybe in the past.

I doubt they are there now either. You will run out of an energy source after some period of time on a dark planet. Life on Earth probably got its first energy from H2S.

It seems unlikely that this source of "dark energy" can compete with a renewable source, like that provided by photosynthesis.

 

[Classical Motion]

How many billions of years has our core kept our planet warm? Very warm.

 

[bolide]

Why is the Oort Cloud only located on one side of the solar system? Why is there a spiral pattern emerging? Uhhh, because everything in our Solar System is being dragged by the Sun, we do not revolve around the sun, from our perspective on Earth we do, but in actuality we are Spiraling behind the Sun as it moves through the cosmos. Problem solved, I don't need a Nobel prize. Use your heads people , jeez, I knew exactly what was happening as soon as I started reading this article.

Also going to Mars is a one way trip, because we do not possess the technology to make the return trip, ships would need to move faster than the sun moving through space to "catch back up" with Earth.

Mars trip doesn't have that problem. Just like Mars and Earth and everything else being dragged by the Sun, so is your spaceship. It's like throwing a ball back & forth in a moving train car. You don't have to throw harder in the forward direction to "catch up" with the train's motion. Your spaceship is traveling within the Sun's inertial frame.

 

[contrarian]

How many billions of years has our core kept our planet warm? Very warm.

If this refers to continuous production of H2S, keep in mind that this compound is toxic to a lot of higher life forms. It seems unlikely that advanced organisms will evolve from this energy source. That is one consideration for the appearance of intelligent life on dark planets. Primitive life forms could indeed persist as long as their energy supply is not exhausted.

 

[Classical Motion]

I was thinking more of the decay products and lifetimes of our core radioactive elements.

A planet with a sufficient core and sufficient water, sufficient EM protection, could maintain a dark but warm environment for billions of years.

Without a sun star. No orbit or an extremely very far orbit.

 

[Classical Motion]

And maybe Thorian lifeforms.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Interesting outcome of the solar system orbital ecliptic plane being so tilted against the galactic plane, it sets up Kosai cycles that defines the arms, as well as the spiral disk tilt at the edges. But the spiral illustration here may be misleading, the two spiral arms are not as long.

Simulated and analytical approximated spiral arms seen from above.

The spiral warp induced by the galactic plane. (Unless I'm mistaken, Sun is moving towards the left along the "Galactic plane" illustration line.)

How many turns per orbit does that spiral have. How many turns per orbit do the spirals of Saturn rings have? And why can’t we find photos of them? They use to be easy to pull up.

Helix. Not spiral. All planets and moons are one turn helix orbits.

We need new gravity equations. And new simulations. And perhaps a new concept of a “stable” orbit.

The arms do not make a full turn, they are frozen in by an essentially static disturbance and other comments describe why we don't yet see them (but read the paper on observation possibilities). The paper gravitational equations, new simulations, analytical models and the old concept of "stable" orbit results in the simulation spiral structure. Saturnus rings have temporary spirals from temporary disturbances.

Modeling the simple elliptical orbits of planets and comets as helixes to account for the solar system orbit in the Milky Way disk is just an unnecessary complication.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Perhaps someone knowledgable in fluid or aero dynamics can help us understand this feature.

Seems the assumption, of when modeled, is largely based on our understanding of fluid dynamics.

The results are not based on fluid dynamics of e.g. general relativistic simplified models or classical physics models of viscous systems, but newtonian gravity of astronomical bodies.

Why is the Oort Cloud only located on one side of the solar system? Why is there a spiral pattern emerging? Uhhh, because everything in our Solar System is being dragged by the Sun, we do not revolve around the sun, from our perspective on Earth we do, but in actuality we are Spiraling behind the Sun as it moves through the cosmos.

Modeling the simple elliptical orbits of planets and comets as helixes to account for the solar system orbit in the Milky Way disk is just an unnecessary complication.

The article summarizes the paper that explains the emergence, and the article illustration shows the Oort cloud as a spherical system with an inner cloud disk (now suggested to have spirals and warp) while the paper describes why that is. Essentially the spherical cloud arise from the galaxy interactions that has "heated up" the initial scattered comets along the ecliptic (solar system plane), while the inner disk oriented around the ecliptic arise from the galaxy interactions being weakened to affect the solar system on the timescale of the solar system itself.

One can find a lot of artist’s renditions of the outer solar system. From what I’ve read, most of our system lies beyond Pluto’s orbit. I’m not sure what they base those concepts on, perhaps radar.

The Oort cloud was established before we had radar observations of solar passing comets, it was done by optical astronomy and newtonian orbital mechanics.

The same way that we now have established that there are non-Oort cloud exocomet visitors.

Doesn't the existence of this spiral suggest a large mass object at the center? Much like a spiral galaxy, has anyone suggested that the object could be a black hole, in this case obviously a intermediate sized one?

The spiral arise from having a central star (Sun) as well as a galaxy out there that the star orbits in the plane of. Stars that lie in the galactic halo may not have these spirals as the model assumes interactions along the galactic plane.

(The galaxy of course also have central supermassive black hole, but its gravitation is dominated by the dark matter halo and the normal matter disk plane - SagA* black hole mass about 4 million solar masses while the Milky Way mass about 10^12 or about a million times more.)

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

I doubt they are there now either. You will run out of an energy source after some period of time on a dark planet. Life on Earth probably got its first energy from H2S.

It seems unlikely that this source of "dark energy" can compete with a renewable source, like that provided by photosynthesis.

I very much agree with the general comment. Solar radiation has order of magnitude more free energy potential fluxes, which is why land plants dominate the ecological energy budget.

But to nitpick, it is not H2S that biologists find at the root of the ToL after the split between geology and biology, it is the CO2/H2 assimilating Wood-Ljungdahl pathway.

However geological evidence and phylogenomic reconstructions of the metabolic network of the common ancestors of archaea and bacteria support that LUCA fixed CO2 and relied on H2.[13][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood–Ljungdahl_pathway

the central biosynthetic reactions of life do not require an external energy source. Rather, these core metabolic reactions release energy all by themselves as long as H2 and CO2 are in supply.

https://www.frontiersin.org/news/20...logy-origin-of-life-energy-hydrothermal-vents

System biology agrees in that such a core would be spun up many orders of magnitude in rate by general cofactors, while the W-L pathway has the hallmark of specific ones dedicated to the vital CO2/H2 assimilation. The open, half alive cells of the LUCA lineage has now amassed two validations of importing externally produced biomolecules:

• The recently discovered evolution of the pre-LUCA genetic code show that there were predecessors that eventually transformed the essentially flat mutational - quasispecies analog - fitness landscape to the modern cell fit (selected for robustness) genetic code that allowed modern evolution (population genetics of species). But also that the amino acids were recruited not by chemical selection as traditional (but biochemical) models have suggested but by transport properties (size). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2410311121
• The modern cell genetic machinery has two frozen in superfluous chiral selection filters (selecting amino acids at 70 % with tRNA binding, chaining them at 70 % with rRNA enzyme pocket selection - altogether a 90 % selection). This has only meaning if the genetic machinery was selected in a regime of biomolecule imports.

 

[contrarian]

A planet with a sufficient core and sufficient water, sufficient EM protection, could maintain a dark but warm environment for billions of years.

Doubtless this is true as our Earth does not gain heat from any source, and it still has a hot core at around 6,000 C, and that after 4.5 billion years. It will be some billions of more years, one would think, before it cools down enough for the geodynamo to collapse. There will be some changes after that.

 

[bolide]

Doubtless this is true as our Earth does not gain heat from any source, and it still has a hot core at around 6,000 C, and that after 4.5 billion years. It will be some billions of more years, one would think, before it cools down enough for the geodynamo to collapse. There will be some changes after that.

Assuming we are talking about the environment at the planet's surface, this argument seems to fall on the horns of a dilemma.

Either the hot core makes a significant thermal contribution to the habitability of the surface environment, or it does not.

If it does not, then the initial premise is falsified. The hot core is irrelevant to thermal conditions at the surface.

But if it does, then the second premise, that the Earth "does not gain heat from any source," comes into question, since the Sun clearly makes a major contribution to thermal conditions at the surface.

So the fact that the Earth has maintained both a hot core and a habitable surface does not support the claim that the former is a sufficient condition for the latter.

Either the hot core makes no difference, or the core is kept hot partly by the contribution of the Sun reducing core heat loss at the surface.

 

[billslugg]

Either the hot core makes a significant thermal contribution to the habitability of the surface environment, or it does not.

There is a heat flow from inside the Earth of 92 milliwatts per square meter. Solar insolation is 1,361 watts/m^2.
The Sun's heat at the surface of Earth is 15,000 times more than the heat from the interior.
Interior heat is partly primordial gravitational energy of collapse, heat of crystalization of iron core, aluminum-26 decay, plus others.

 

[Classical Motion]

If our planet goes rogue, I suggest boring and throttling the flash at the poles. Creating two very warm areas at the poles. With banded temp zones to the equator. With the equator forming a ring of ice. Creating a variable temp planet for life. Warm to ice.

Harnessed flash can be use to generate light, for plant growth. But never to compare with today. We would need some kind of food substitute, from different life forms. Probability bacteria and fungus.

Bon appétit.