<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've looked through his papers several years ago, but quite honestly didn't grasp them. Not to mention that, IIRC, he has 3 or 4 papers approaching 100 pages. No easy task for the layman to critique. I understand much more these days. I have some free time this weekend and will give them another whirl. No promises, though... <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I started reading through Brynjolfsson's paper:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420</p><p>I made it to page 4 of 95. </p><p>His critique of the Pound-Rebka experiment is flawed. His application of quantum transition does not apply to the photon changing wavelength. Quantum transition has everything to do with the quantum state of the electron bound to an atom and whether it can absorb or emit a photon. Considering his paper is the application of quantum mechanics to General Relativity and thus requiring a modification to relativity, he might try to understand what he is applying and to where it is applied.</p><p>Also on page 4, I don't understand how he can normalize the Poynting vector when he is concerned with the field of a single photon. </p><p>Maybe it's my ignorance, but it appears to me the two of his beginning premises are flawed. It's no wonder you don't see any in depth critiques of his papers. If the flaws are as obvious to a layman like myself, I can completely understand those who work in the field not giving his papers the time of day. Clearly, I will admit that my pointing out these two flaws may be misguided. However, until someone clarifies them for me... they are flaws. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I started reading through Brynjolfsson's paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420I made it to page 4 of 95. His critique of the Pound-Rebka experiment is flawed. His application of quantum transition does not apply to the photon changing wavelength. </DIV></p><p>The premise of his paper seems to be that it *does* apply to individual photons as well. I think that's what the following mathematical process is all about in fact. Perhaps I don't adequately understand your objection howeer, so perhaps you simply need to eleborate it bit more on this point so I better understand your objection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also on page 4, I don't understand how he can normalize the Poynting vector when he is concerned with the field of a single photon.</DIV></p><p>Single photons have a specific wavelength, and would follow a vectored path like any other wavelength of light, so I do not understand this objection either. It is not as though a single photon is not both a particle and a wave. It is both a wave and a particle, and must be treated as such. </p><p>I'm not certain I fully understand your first objection but the second one seems moot. All photons have a specific wavelength and would have momentum in a specific direction. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetospheric Eternally Contracting Object. It is yet another failed attempt at disproving black holes by Abhas Mitra. There have been several such attempts recently revolving around the Schwarzschild solutions. Most notably, by Stephen J. Crothers, Leonard S. Abrams, and Salvatore Antoci have all been soundly rejected by relativists with a far deeper mathematical understanding than what I posses. If there was any merit to their work, physicists would be flocking en masse like ants to honey to have their names associated with such a profound paradigm shift. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm not suggesting that MECO theory is "better than" black hole theory or any other theory, but I think your idea that folks flock en masse to new ideas like ants to honey is more than a wee bit naive. It does *not* work that way. There is usually a *lot* of early resistance to all new ideas. Even GR took awhile to catch on. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Just want to let you fellas know that I will be away on course for about 2 1/2 weeks. I'll try to get on within that time when I can. I leave tomorrow and return on March 3rd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just want to let you fellas know that I will be away on course for about 2 1/2 weeks. Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>I guess that's better than being off course!! 
<br />Look forward to your return. Good questions!</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<br />Look forward to your return. Good questions!</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div><p>The photon exists as a wave function, but when it is detected (as per the Pound Rebka experiment) the wave function collapses. The wave function is a state of probablilities. While Brynjollfson's (referred to as "Ari" from here on out... I have his last name memorized, but it's still a pain to type), reference to the ability to predict what the photon will do within that short of a distance may be correct, it doesn't apply to the aforementioned experiment. There is no prediction. It is actual, real time, data.</p><p>The Pound-Rebka experiment used an atom to emit a photon. If that photon's energy is different, an identical atom will not absorb it. This is what the experiment tells us. The photon's energy was not the same. If it was the same, said atom should have absorbed it.</p><p>Now, if you applied the wave function probabilities to predict if the energy of the photon would change, you would realize the prediction is not possible. However, this is irrelevant. The Pound-Rebka experiment is not based on quantum mechanical predictions.</p><p>When an atom jumps from an energetic state to a lower energetic state, it emits a photon. The time required to make the jump is where the probability laws are pertinent.</p><p>Gravitational redshift is not a jump from one energetic state to another. There is no transition. Ari's critique of the Pound-Rebka experiment is fundamentally flawed. The very premise of his paper.</p><p>At least, that's my interpretation... I could be wrong. If it would please you, I could tap into others with a deeper understanding than I without mentioning Ari's paper and see what type of responses I get. I'm pretty confident, though, I'm on the right track here. </p><div style=""></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Good evening fellas,
Just letting you guys know after I returned from my course I saw the announcement about the skin & layout changes to the discussion board. Since those changes were made I was unable to access my account or change + request my password. Up until tonight I had been working with a site admin to fix the error. Finally it got resolved, and it's sweet to be back
Good evening fellas,
Just letting you guys know after I returned from my course I saw the announcement about the skin & layout changes to the discussion board. Since those changes were made I was unable to access my account or change + request my password. Up until tonight I had been working with a site admin to fix the error. Finally it got resolved, and it's sweet to be back
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
There is no drawing force at all!
When particle is new, is hot/density and that particle time is slowly!
Thats why new particle dont emit energy fast and that why is not giving kinetic energy for expanding atoms nucleus!
When particle is old, is not so hot/density and time is not so slowly and thats why particle emit energy fast. Thats why particle giving kinetic energy for expanding atoms nucleus!
thats why we stay earth skin with out gravity, you know!
thats why you can see old light who is redshifting!
Not, because space expanding!
space dont expanding or curving/bending at all!
You say, space start expanding faster same time when quasars born!
You can see how energy start expanding faster and you say, space start expanding faster?
It is funny!
Because there born quasars, there start moving more energy between expanding photons and that energy get photons expanding faster!
it is onesimpleprinciple com, nothing else, you know!
Space dont expanding at all!
Energy expanding in space who dont expanding!
Also photons expanding and emit expanding energy and with that energy, expanding photons pushing themselfs far away same way what photons wexpanding!
thats why old light it is redshifting!
You cant see, heard, taste, smell or feel space1
You cant make any test with space!
There is no drawing force at all!
Only force is pressure!
We can explain everything with change of pressure!
All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).
We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve.
Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.
The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration.
In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand?
It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy.
So the space does not expand or curve!
The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes!
When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on...
It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it.
That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the
energy is all the time.
So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser.
Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.
There is no drawing force at all!
When particle is new, is hot/density and that particle time is slowly!
Thats why new particle dont emit energy fast and that why is not giving kinetic energy for expanding atoms nucleus!
When particle is old, is not so hot/density and time is not so slowly and thats why particle emit energy fast. Thats why particle giving kinetic energy for expanding atoms nucleus!
thats why we stay earth skin with out gravity, you know!
thats why you can see old light who is redshifting!
Not, because space expanding!
space dont expanding or curving/bending at all!
You say, space start expanding faster same time when quasars born!
You can see how energy start expanding faster and you say, space start expanding faster?
It is funny!
Because there born quasars, there start moving more energy between expanding photons and that energy get photons expanding faster!
it is onesimpleprinciple com, nothing else, you know!
Space dont expanding at all!
Energy expanding in space who dont expanding!
Also photons expanding and emit expanding energy and with that energy, expanding photons pushing themselfs far away same way what photons wexpanding!
thats why old light it is redshifting!
You cant see, heard, taste, smell or feel space1
You cant make any test with space!
There is no drawing force at all!
Only force is pressure!
We can explain everything with change of pressure!
All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).
We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve.
Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.
The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration.
In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand?
It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy.
So the space does not expand or curve!
The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes!
When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on...
It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it.
That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the
energy is all the time.
So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser.
Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Atoms nucleus expanding and emit expanding energy and that energy have a nature of expanding electrons and expanding particle.
Expanding electrons just moving to the next expanding atoms nucleus and get this expanding more energy etc!
Atoms nucleus expanding and emit expanding energy and that energy have a nature of expanding electrons and expanding particle.
Expanding electrons just moving to the next expanding atoms nucleus and get this expanding more energy etc!
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Please ignore the two previous posts, they are pseudoscientific babble.
Please ignore the two previous posts, they are pseudoscientific babble.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
lol, after reading that I figured it was just a matter of time before you shot that one down MeteorWayne. That theory doesn't explain anything at all. Maybe a little of the expansion, but pressure alone would not explain most of what's going on. Sorry pioneer78, but onesimpleprinciple.com really needs to go back to the drawing board and do some actual research. I don't mean reading comic book fairy tales, but actual studying the work of others with legitimate theories proven with evidence. Sorry you wasted your time posting all that, but like me I have to do a lot of reading & studying to figure it out. It is always better to do your own research then copying others theories.
lol, after reading that I figured it was just a matter of time before you shot that one down MeteorWayne. That theory doesn't explain anything at all. Maybe a little of the expansion, but pressure alone would not explain most of what's going on. Sorry pioneer78, but onesimpleprinciple.com really needs to go back to the drawing board and do some actual research. I don't mean reading comic book fairy tales, but actual studying the work of others with legitimate theories proven with evidence. Sorry you wasted your time posting all that, but like me I have to do a lot of reading & studying to figure it out. It is always better to do your own research then copying others theories.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Sorry but i am right!
There is no extra dimension!
You cant say 2 D alien dont understund 3 D, because there is no 2 d alien1
if you take off one dimension, you dont have anything at all, after that!
If you take off width/thickness, you dont have anything at all, after that!
So, forget extra dimensions, expanding space and drawing force!
I can explain also magnetism with change of pressure!
If there is movement, you need energy who expanding normal faster.
If you want to drive car, you need gasolin who expanding normal faster.
If you want to stop, you need to put brake expanding normal faster etc.
So, sorry about that, but i am right and you are wrong!
.
xXTheOneRavenXx":2gji7s3p said:
Sorry but i am right!
There is no extra dimension!
You cant say 2 D alien dont understund 3 D, because there is no 2 d alien1
if you take off one dimension, you dont have anything at all, after that!
If you take off width/thickness, you dont have anything at all, after that!
So, forget extra dimensions, expanding space and drawing force!
I can explain also magnetism with change of pressure!
If there is movement, you need energy who expanding normal faster.
If you want to drive car, you need gasolin who expanding normal faster.
If you want to stop, you need to put brake expanding normal faster etc.
So, sorry about that, but i am right and you are wrong!
.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
I would strongly suggest that you stop posting this undeciperable pseudoscientic babble in the science forums. If you want to post this stuff in the Unexplained, go right ahead, However, if you continue to post them in this forum, there will be serious repercussions.
Wayne the Moderator.
I would strongly suggest that you stop posting this undeciperable pseudoscientic babble in the science forums. If you want to post this stuff in the Unexplained, go right ahead, However, if you continue to post them in this forum, there will be serious repercussions.
Wayne the Moderator.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Oh boy, now I understand. You believe the whole world except onesimpleprincipal.com is wrong. Well I think your tossing out Einsteins theories, stepping on every other proven theory of the expansion out there, and believing in a fantasy. Pressure alone doesn't even explain the orbits of planets let alone the expansion. As MeteorWayne put it, this "theory" is nothing more then unconscious nauseating "babble". Please do some more homework on present theories before believing in just one. I don't mean to completly shoot you down pioneer78, I actually like constructive criticism. However this theory of yours (or the one you believe in) really cannot explain anything at all. But really, MeteorWayne has some awesome links to some information I think you should take some time to study first.
Thanx, and good luck.
Oh boy, now I understand. You believe the whole world except onesimpleprincipal.com is wrong. Well I think your tossing out Einsteins theories, stepping on every other proven theory of the expansion out there, and believing in a fantasy. Pressure alone doesn't even explain the orbits of planets let alone the expansion. As MeteorWayne put it, this "theory" is nothing more then unconscious nauseating "babble". Please do some more homework on present theories before believing in just one. I don't mean to completly shoot you down pioneer78, I actually like constructive criticism. However this theory of yours (or the one you believe in) really cannot explain anything at all. But really, MeteorWayne has some awesome links to some information I think you should take some time to study first.
Thanx, and good luck.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
I'm just curious to know if there are any stars found orbiting a black hole in the opposite direction? Yes, I am meaning the possibility of any existing black holes with a reversed rotation.
I'm just curious to know if there are any stars found orbiting a black hole in the opposite direction? Yes, I am meaning the possibility of any existing black holes with a reversed rotation.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
From our perspective, yes. From any other perspective you wish to choose... the answer is still yes. This is due to the universe having a net angular momentum of zero. In other words, you will find an equal amount of galaxies rotating in any given plane from which you choose to measure.
Measured alone, our galaxy does have angular momentum. However, you will still find stars rotating in odd directions. IIRC, even our own solar system is tilted 60 degrees to the equatorial plane of the galaxy. Even within our own solar system, we have oddballs like venus with a retrograde rotation and Uranus tilted 90 degrees.
xXTheOneRavenXx":12c62k5u said:
From our perspective, yes. From any other perspective you wish to choose... the answer is still yes. This is due to the universe having a net angular momentum of zero. In other words, you will find an equal amount of galaxies rotating in any given plane from which you choose to measure.
Measured alone, our galaxy does have angular momentum. However, you will still find stars rotating in odd directions. IIRC, even our own solar system is tilted 60 degrees to the equatorial plane of the galaxy. Even within our own solar system, we have oddballs like venus with a retrograde rotation and Uranus tilted 90 degrees.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
The real question is opposite to what?
The real question is opposite to what?
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Indeed. Rather similar to the question, "Is the universe spinning." Typical response is, "In relation to what?"
MeteorWayne":2f0qd4bd said:
Indeed. Rather similar to the question, "Is the universe spinning." Typical response is, "In relation to what?"
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
I mean as stars rotate around black holes... and they pulls matter into themselves, the stars, gases & matter twists around it in a specific direction. Do all black holes pull matter into themselves in the same direction?
I mean as stars rotate around black holes... and they pulls matter into themselves, the stars, gases & matter twists around it in a specific direction. Do all black holes pull matter into themselves in the same direction?
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
Not really; the direction of a black hole spin would be random. Now there may be a correlation between supermassive black holes at galaxy centers and the direction of spin of the galaxy...or not. AFAIK, there's know way to measure the spin direction of a black hole. As far as the infalling material, it's spin diection is determined by the angular momentum of the infalling material, I would think.
Not really; the direction of a black hole spin would be random. Now there may be a correlation between supermassive black holes at galaxy centers and the direction of spin of the galaxy...or not. AFAIK, there's know way to measure the spin direction of a black hole. As far as the infalling material, it's spin diection is determined by the angular momentum of the infalling material, I would think.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
The reason I ask if all black holes move in a counter-clockwise or clockwise direction might also help with unveiling whether they are attached to another black hole. (General relativity describes the possibility of configurations in which two black holes are connected to each other. Such a configuration is usually called a wormhole. In practice, such configurations, seem completely unfeasible in astrophysics, because no known process seems to allow the formation of such objects.) However the direction velocity of a black hole might indicate this existence. If general black holes say move in a counter-clockwise direction, then one that moves in an opposite direction should indicate an attachment (or exiting) to a standardly rotating black hole should it not?
The reason I ask if all black holes move in a counter-clockwise or clockwise direction might also help with unveiling whether they are attached to another black hole. (General relativity describes the possibility of configurations in which two black holes are connected to each other. Such a configuration is usually called a wormhole. In practice, such configurations, seem completely unfeasible in astrophysics, because no known process seems to allow the formation of such objects.) However the direction velocity of a black hole might indicate this existence. If general black holes say move in a counter-clockwise direction, then one that moves in an opposite direction should indicate an attachment (or exiting) to a standardly rotating black hole should it not?
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
The hole (haha) concept of clockwise and counterclockwise have no real meaning, if you think about it. Clockwise or counterclockwise in relation to what?
The hole (haha) concept of clockwise and counterclockwise have no real meaning, if you think about it. Clockwise or counterclockwise in relation to what?
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
In relation to the singularities spin of course. In our own milky way galaxy we can look at the galactic arms and how they extend inward toward the galactic center in a clockwise direction. This would strongly suggest the black hole singularity also rotates in a clockwise rotation.
In relation to the singularities spin of course. In our own milky way galaxy we can look at the galactic arms and how they extend inward toward the galactic center in a clockwise direction. This would strongly suggest the black hole singularity also rotates in a clockwise rotation.
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
You fail to understand the question. Clockwise relative to what?
You fail to understand the question. Clockwise relative to what?
Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins
I really don't understand what you mean. If you look at the disk portion of a spiral galaxy according to Newtonian mechanics it should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun. This would imply to me that the galactic center also rotates in the same direction, how else would this rotation be explained? If this is true, then those galaxies which form in the opposite direction could be assume to have developed around a black hole which rotates in the same direction as the developed galaxies rotation.
I really don't understand what you mean. If you look at the disk portion of a spiral galaxy according to Newtonian mechanics it should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun. This would imply to me that the galactic center also rotates in the same direction, how else would this rotation be explained? If this is true, then those galaxies which form in the opposite direction could be assume to have developed around a black hole which rotates in the same direction as the developed galaxies rotation.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
-
David Lynch's 'Dune' at 40: David Lynch's 1984 adaptation is a true spice oddity
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram