The galaxy system

[Quazar]

To post a new thread somehow implies old threads have become redundant,or at least inadequate. This becomes apparent when we try to analyse the shape and size of the Universe.
At present the Universe could be open, closed or flat. In the shape of a cone, saddle even cubicle etc,.
But of course it is none of the above.
The Universe is a galaxy, a galaxy of galaxies.
The galaxy system is good enough for solar systems and our own
Milky Way, then why not the Universe ?

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Hi Quazar, welcome to the BAUT forum.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. The Solar System, and the Milky Way galaxy are similar in some ways, for example having things orbit around a central spot, mostly in a plane. However the Solar System and the Milky way also have some profound differences. For example more than 99% of the mass of the Solar System is in the Sun, but only a tiny fraction of a percent of the mass of the Milky way is in the central black hole Sgr A*.

Are you saying that the universe is a giant planar rotating body of galaxy clusters, containing some central massive object somewhere?

[Faultline]

The universe would be more like a galaxy if a galaxy consisted of everything rushing away from everything else.

A solar system would be more like a galaxy if our the central star in the solar system wasn't nearly as massive as it was, but everything continued to orbit it anyway.

Hope it helps.

[Quazar]

Hi Quazar, welcome to the BAUT forum.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. The Solar System, and the Milky Way galaxy are similar in some ways, for example having things orbit around a central spot, mostly in a plane. However the Solar System and the Milky way also have some profound differences. For example more than 99% of the mass of the Solar System is in the Sun, but only a tiny fraction of a percent of the mass of the Milky way is in the central black hole Sgr A*.

Are you saying that the universe is a giant planar rotating body of galaxy clusters, containing some central massive object somewhere?

Yes,I am.

[antoniseb]

Yes,I am.
Alright. Let's go one step further. Are you assuming that the universe is so large that the observable universe (13.7 billion light years in radius) is small compared to the thickness of the disk?

If you answerd yes to this, what is shortest possible time for one complete revolution of the rotating body at our location?

[Quazar]

Alright. Let's go one step further. Are you assuming that the universe is so large that the observable universe (13.7 billion light years in radius) is small compared to the thickness of the disk?

If you answerd yes to this, what is shortest possible time for one complete revolution of the rotating body at our location?

Earth takes 1 year to revolve once around the sun.
The sun [ our solar system ] requires 225 million years to revolve once around the Galaxy.
the Galaxy at our position within it moving sedately along at one hundredth the speed of light, I estimate a period of 8.6 billion years should do the trick.
However, to assume a size for the Universe based solely on the capacity of present technology is somewhat previous, since the size of the Milky Way has only recently [ relatively speaking ] been er, assumed. We are still unable to decide what lies at its centre, a meagre 50,000 light years distant.
I believe it to be a sun.
A thousand+ solar masses sun.

[Quazar]

Earth takes 1 year to revolve once around the sun.
The sun [ our solar system ] requires 225 million years to revolve once around the Galaxy.
the Galaxy at our position within it moving sedately along at one hundredth the speed of light, I estimate a period of 8.6 billion years should do the trick.
However, to assume a size for the Universe based solely on the capacity of present technology is somewhat previous, since the size of the Milky Way has only recently [ relatively speaking ] been er, assumed. We are still unable to decide what lies at its centre, a meagre 50,000 light years distant.
I believe it to be a sun.
A thousand+ solar masses sun.

p.s. for a thousand + read A thousand billion. Cheers.

[captain swoop]

hhm! how long would a star that size last? even if it were possible?

[antoniseb]

the Galaxy at our position within it moving sedately along at one hundredth the speed of light, I estimate a period of 8.6 billion years should do the trick.

No, I don't think that would do the trick. If the entire universe is one planar rotating object, 8.6 billion years at 1% the speed of light would mean we are a mere 12 million light years from the center, and should observe the center easily, and see all of the galaxies around us revolving in a plane.

For this model to agree with observations of the structure of the universe, you'd need the radius to be at least 260 billion light years, and if we are moving at 1% the speed of light around this super-galaxy universe, we've traveled 130 million light years out of 1.5 trillion (about a third of a degree) in the entire history of the universe.

[Faultline]

p.s. for a thousand + read A thousand billion. Cheers.

Something with that much mass couldn't be anything but a singularity.

Plus, like was mentioned above, it wouldn't last long as a star even if the outward fusion reaction forces could sustain versus the inward gravitational pull. The more fuel a star has, the shorter its life span because it "burns" it at a much more fierce pace.

There are theories of massive stars that have a lifespan less than 1 million years before going nova. It has something to do with GRB's, I think.

Anyone care to comment?

[Nereid]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. The Solar System, and the Milky Way galaxy are similar in some ways, for example having things orbit around a central spot, mostly in a plane. However the Solar System and the Milky way also have some profound differences. For example more than 99% of the mass of the Solar System is in the Sun, but only a tiny fraction of a percent of the mass of the Milky way is in the central black hole Sgr A*.

Are you saying that the universe is a giant planar rotating body of galaxy clusters, containing some central massive object somewhere?Yes,I am.How to account for the Hubble relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law), in this idea?

Specifically, the fact that it seems to be the same, no matter which direction we look.

[Quazar]

No, I don't think that would do the trick. If the entire universe is one planar rotating object, 8.6 billion years at 1% the speed of light would mean we are a mere 12 million light years from the center, and should observe the center easily, and see all of the galaxies around us revolving in a plane.

For this model to agree with observations of the structure of the universe, you'd need the radius to be at least 260 billion light years, and if we are moving at 1% the speed of light around this super-galaxy universe, we've traveled 130 million light years out of 1.5 trillion (about a third of a degree) in the entire history of the universe.

Oh dear, millions, billions, trillions. We appear to be loosing the posted thread.
The galaxy system explains the origin of stars, perfectly. Because of the obvious success of this system why should if be different for the Universe.
There are many galaxies visible with today's technology and the Whirlpool Galaxy is the clearest indicator of the system in operation. The central bulge containing the huge sun, and the stars along the arms are clearly visible in this very explicit spiral galaxy. What was not realized, and explains so many origin problems, is that the stars have been ejected from the sun at the centre. Great sprays of stars and gas arcing outwards in the ecliptic plane of the rotating sun. Further examination of the arms reveal large and small stars, some large enough to behave as the central sun and form their own mini-galaxy, or cluster.

[captain swoop]

OK whats the mechanism that allows such a huge sun? what stops it collapsing? If it doesn't collapse, how long would it last?

[antoniseb]

Oh dear, millions, billions, trillions. We appear to be loosing the posted thread.

Yes. You clearly haven't given this enough thought to make it worth following up on. Good luck to you in your future efforts to explain the universe.

[Quazar]

OK whats the mechanism that allows such a huge sun? what stops it collapsing? If it doesn't collapse, how long would it last?

All suns in galaxies are balls of gas and are formed by the same process.their size, just as there are different sized planets within a solar system, is dependant on the parent sun from whice they are ejected.
What stops a sun collapsing?
Why should it, why should any sun, regardless of size, collapse?
Gravity, as Newton discovered, increases with the increase in mass. The larger the mass the greater the gravity, conversely, with the reduction of mass comes with it a reduction of gravity.
All of which means that gravity will always be greatest at the surface of any sized sun. Travel outwards, away from the surface, and gravity diminishes,travel inwards, to the centre, and because mass reduces towards the centre then gravity also reduces. Because mass reduces to nothing at the very centre then there can be no attraction, for particles of any size,therefore no collapse.

[antoniseb]

gravity will always be greatest at the surface of any sized sun. Travel outwards, away from the surface, and gravity diminishes,travel inwards, to the centre, and because mass reduces towards the centre then gravity also reduces. Because mass reduces to nothing at the very centre then there can be no attraction, for particles of any size,therefore no collapse.

For a sphere of uniform density that might be true, but the bulk of the mass of the Sun is in the center. Regardless, inward pressure from outer layers drives the collapse. Only at the very center of gravity is there no perceived gravity, but there, pressure is at a maximum.

[Quazar]

For a sphere of uniform density that might be true, but the bulk of the mass of the Sun is in the center. Regardless, inward pressure from outer layers drives the collapse. Only at the very center of gravity is there no perceived gravity, but there, pressure is at a maximum.

A sphere with the bulk of its weight at the centre would quickly cease to revolve. This is clearly not so for our sun, however, there is further proof available observationally, where we can see the equatorial regions moving faster than the polar regions. If the sun had a heavy centre then the opposite would be true.

[antoniseb]

A sphere with the bulk of its weight at the centre would quickly cease to revolve. This is clearly not so for our sun, however, there is further proof available observationally, where we can see the equatorial regions moving faster than the polar regions. If the sun had a heavy centre then the opposite would be true.
What? Can you back any of that up with any kind of science? Why would it cease to revolve (rotate?) My understanding is that more than half of the mass of the Sun is in a core roughly the size of Jupiter (one eleventh the radius of the Sun). Are you trying to make the case that the Sun has a uniform density?

Also, why would the poles spin faster than the equatorial region if the Sun's mass was mostly in a smaller core?

[Faultline]

Really, man. I want to hear the answer to this one. What physical phenomenon would cause a sphere to stop revolving if the bulk of its weight is in the center?

[cjl]

Not to mention that although there is no net gravitational force in the center of the sun, there is still massive pressure. The weight of all the surrounding gas is all pushing down on the center, so the pressure can be enormous with no net force. So, this does allow for collapse.

[novaderrik]

i watched a tv show a few years back on Discovery or something, and they showed the "shape" of the universe as all the glaaxies lined up in the form of a DNA strand.
it looked cool, but i think they were taking a bit of artistic license there.
did someone here perhaps see a tv show that had a similar animation, but with the end result being a giant spiral galaxy-like structure?

[Quazar]

What? Can you back any of that up with any kind of science? Why would it cease to revolve (rotate?) My understanding is that more than half of the mass of the Sun is in a core roughly the size of Jupiter (one eleventh the radius of the Sun). Are you trying to make the case that the Sun has a uniform density?

Also, why would the poles spin faster than the equatorial region if the Sun's mass was mostly in a smaller core?

A sun with a massive core. by definition, must have lighter outer layers. If this is correct, and to correspond with observation, then these lighter outer layers must be pulling the core around. Or as would be more probable in a rotating sun with a massive core is for the core to rotate faster than the lighter outer layers, thereby creating drag. This action would be a contradiction of what is observed. Either way the Sun would have ceased rotating long ago and we wouldnot have been witness to what we see today.

[antoniseb]

If this is correct, and to correspond with observation, then these lighter outer layers must be pulling the core around. Or as would be more probable in a rotating sun with a massive core is for the core to rotate faster than the lighter outer layers, thereby creating drag.

What specific observations are you thinking of here?

[Nereid]

A sun with a massive core. by definition, must have lighter outer layers. If this is correct, and to correspond with observation, then these lighter outer layers must be pulling the core around. Or as would be more probable in a rotating sun with a massive core is for the core to rotate faster than the lighter outer layers, thereby creating drag. This action would be a contradiction of what is observed. Either way the Sun would have ceased rotating long ago and we wouldnot have been witness to what we see today.Is this something you've modelled, using Newtonian gravity and gas laws (or something similar)? Or are you just speculating that this might the way it works out?

To take an extreme example: a white dwarf is very massive, and surrounded by a tenuous cloud of gas (let's assume it's a gas, for now).

By the idea in your (quoted) post, if I've understood it correctly, this tenuous cloud would have caused the white dwarf 'core' to have "ceased rotating long ago". But we don't see any such white dwarfs - why?

[Quazar]

What specific observations are you thinking of here?

Because of my belief in zero mass and zero gravity at the centre of suns, stars, I have difficulty in accepting present ideas that they are formations of gas and dust which began to rotate as they collapsed in on themselves.
There are two main reasons.
How in a vaccuous space did a spinning mass attain a regular rotation speed and not continue at an ever increasing rate?
what manner of rotation allows for the equatorial regions to exceed the polar regions?

[Sp1ke]

There are definitely some ATM bits coming out here.

Because of my belief in zero mass and zero gravity at the centre of suns, stars

I don't think there's any scientific evidence for this belief, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

which began to rotate as they collapsed in on themselves

The collapsing doesn't cause the rotation. It's just that there is bound to be some difference in the direction of motion of the gas and dust that make up a sun so when it condenses, it is highly unlikely that the net rotation is zero.

...attain a regular rotation speed and not continue at an ever increasing rate?

What makes you think that the rotation speed would increase? The rotation speed is the average of all the various components that make up the star so the rotation in a vacuum would be pretty constant. It will speed up as it contracts (just like a skater pulling in their arms) and that's what we observe. Our sun rotates fairly sedately but highly compressed white dwarfs are whizzing round many times a second.