Starship Asterisk*

SKY DOGS wrote:whats the story with the arms being made by gravity waves and not a spinning in motion?

bystander wrote:Why would you think that gravitational affects would be different for dust and gas than for stars? I don't think it's the mass by itself that matters, it's the angular momentum that counts.

mark swain wrote:I actually think, that the black hole is consuming dead star matter. Gas, Dust, But as Chris points out, not all gets past the Event Horizon. Most of the matter just converges to form new stars. but, here comes the interesting bit. They move outwards . Small particles, gas, dust, move inwards. and heavy objects like stars move the other way. but on a time scale that is very hard to see. When i look at the above picture of our milky way. I do not see stars spiraling inwards. i see them spiraling out wards, like on a production line. All be it very very slowly.

...images showing in unprecedented detail how matter spirals toward the black hole at the centre of a galaxy...

...a detailed view of the channelling process of matter, from the main part of the galaxy down to the very end in the nucleus...

...These observations provide astronomers with new insights on how supermassive black holes lurking inside galaxies get fed...

mark swain wrote:How can new stars form, when there is no input to feed them? Where does the new matter to feed new stars come from if there is nothing falling inwards?

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:If objects/Stars are being created at a very high rate. One would assume other objects being crushed at the same time?

Why? I don't see the logical connection between the two, and I don't think there is any actual suggestion that the latter is occurring. It is usual for stars to form in areas rich in gas and dust, particularly if a mechanism exists to produce shock fronts. This area is influenced by the central black hole, but material here isn't being consumed.

mark swain wrote:If objects/Stars are being created at a very high rate. One would assume other objects being crushed at the same time?

And the spiral i see, is not my imagination. Or any allusion. But newly created stars, spiraling out wards.

Is not your spiral arm, an indication that dark matter is also traveling with us around and around?

The orbit of our planet and solar system around the galaxy Is a totally different concept to how spiral arms work. would you not say?

mark swain wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Spiral galaxies have a central bulge (probably always, even when the viewpoint might make it not apparent). The whirlpool effect you describe is an illusion. Material is not spiraling into the center of these galaxies, and the central black holes are only absorbing a tiny amount of matter from their surrounds, and those surrounds are far too small to be visible at the scale where you can see the entire galaxy.

What?

So can you please explain what we are seeing?

Chris Peterson wrote:We are seeing a spiral shape. The brain tries to interpret spirals as material flowing into the center (or out of it), but that isn't usually what's going on. The Sun has orbited the Milky Way many times since it was formed, but our distance from the center hasn't changed. Likewise for all the stars you see in any spiral galaxy- each is orbiting in an approximately elliptical orbit (it's a little more complex than simple Keplerian orbit dynamics, because the mass is distributed), and each is staying about the same distance from the center over time. There is no inward flow of material in a spiral galaxy.

mark swain wrote:Ok . Thanks Chris. Oh yeah, check this out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... alaxy.html

mark swain wrote:Ok . Thanks Chris. Oh yeah, check this out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... alaxy.html

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:Unless your large star, is trying to get to the same place another 30,000 stars, also want to get to.

I don't know of anywhere in the Universe where that situation is happening, though.

What happens to A huge Star,When another huge Star runs into it?

Presumably, it depends on the angle of the collision. The two could pull apart after transferring some material, or they might coalesce. In the latter case, the result would depend on where each was in its stellar evolution. You might end up with an unstable mass, or with more material to fuse. In any case, such collisions are extremely rare.

mark swain wrote:Unless your large star, is trying to get to the same place another 30,000 stars, also want to get to.

What happens to A huge Star,When another huge Star runs into it?

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:(Loss of angular momentum due to gravitational radiation will doom you eventually, however.)

Certainly. Of course, the same is true whether or not a galaxy has a black hole at the center. Given long enough (and we're talking many, many times the age of the Universe) everything ends up in the center.

PassionateBomba wrote: Science gave us abortion, and said it was good, after all we are either all atheists or fools. Now we see the most fervent opposition to abortion comes from those that have experienced it. Sometimes the soul, truth rears its ugly head at the wrong time.

You are bringing religion or moralities to the forum, which is not welcomed! Please take the matter up in the Cafe.

Even today, we are learning that the leading scientists on global warming are suddenly coming into doubt. The word fraud is even beginning to surface in some reports. WOW! And scientists in Australia were saying the Earth was cooling all along. They didn't get media attention though, and I would "guess" there wasn't much money to be made in cooling. But maybe if we get the temp down another degree or two, Al Gore won't sweat so much, and that will benefit us all.

Neither is political discussion welcomed here. Again take it up in the Cafe. This pro- and anti-global warming argument has gotten tiresome.

Maybe this was off topic, but was intended for background.
Why would anyone speak callously about Mark thinking black holes suck everything up. That's how they were represented to the public, and trust me on this one, most people are not reading the latest and greatest on scientific change of hearts. When science makes its public pitch, it never fails to claim absolute authoritative truth. Maybe that's the last Mark heard of it, I know it was the last I heard of it. Now this thing with so much gravity, even photons can't escape its pull, can only suck things up that happen to jump in to it. Hmmm. One thing about scientific truth is, if you live long enough, it will change with the next need to get a name in a scientific journal.

It is an outright falsehood that scientists claim "absolute authoritative truth", as you put it. They are forever revising their opinions based on latest findings and observations, and they are always arguing their hypotheses and theories with their peers. They are not doing it for money either as you seem to believe. If they are, they must be stupid for choosing a low paying career when they could use their smarts to get rich off Wall Street like those "brilliant" traders there who got multi-million dollar bonuses. No, they are doing it because they love making discoveries and coming up with possible explanations for them, based, of course, what make sense, not what fits their religious or ideological beliefs if any.

NASA gets a lot of money. Public perception and interest is absolutely critical. After all, its the public's money they get.
Now Enceladus is erupting ice. Ice? This conjures up visions of under ice oceans and of course, the trusty old purse puller, Life on another planet! We need billions. We need them now! Remember everybody, the Earth was once covered in ice too. Enceladus might be in birthing pains, ice blows all over the place! A whale might pop out at anytime. We must be there, give us billions!

Are you saying that the "billions" spent on scientific research and space exploration are a waste of money? If it weren't for those "billions", we wouldn't have all those fantastic pictures from Hubble Space Telescope and the robotic spacecrafts that explored the solar system. We wouldn't have either the necessary miniaturization of electronics that NASA funded to reduce spacecraft weight which eventually gave us all those wonderful gizmos that we can't live without today!

Mark, keep asking the questions buddy. You will get many answers that go deeper and deeper until you don't know what is being said. If you don't think so, you best brush up on your quantum physics. Reading other threads you see that's where it winds up if it needs to. I asked a question here once about why NASA feels the need to publicize these "doctored" photos. Just show us what we see, at least along side the the doctored one. You won't see many of these photos in your telescope. In the end, I thought I was at a lecture of the Einstein Guild.

These "doctored" photos were created for the benefits of scientific study of the chemical and electromagnetic signatures given off by the planets, stars, galaxies, and other space bodies, not for general public! They don't have the time to make the photos you want, They just happen to make them available to us for our enjoyment and wonder. If you want the pictures to be what your eyes would see, you will be disappointed and dissatisfied.

Don't get me wrong, I love space (APOD), always have. Always had a telescope too, but never much good at using it. Showed my friends some craters and moons and Orion's "star". Wasn't as pretty as those shown in APOD. Mine wouldn't have generated billions either.
Einstein once interpreted that gravity could bend light and was later "proven" by Eddington that could see stars behind the Sun in an eclipse. The Mayans used this principle thousands of years ago to travel all the way to 2012, by starring into desert thermals. Most of us can do this now by standing between two mirrors holding a candle. Don't try that at home until someone has learnt you how to get back! Hint: you're going to need a pyramid.

Your simple backyard telescope will never match what you can get from the "billion" dollar space- and land-based large telescopes, but if you are willing to spend a few thousands on a better telescope outfitted with an expensive camera and computer system and set it up in a dark sky site, you can get pretty good deep sky pictures.

Don't worry so much about the bulge in the galaxy center. A city from a distance appears to bulge into the night sky as well, but it doesn't. Just a process of living in a 3D universe.
And don't confuse knowledge with thinking. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. In that case, the Earth would still be flat. A picture and/or an illegible mathematical equation will not gain us any knowledge on what's occurring in our own galaxy, let alone a distant one. That would be, theoretical. At 10 million light years away, the Silver Dollar Galaxy may not even exist now. The whole universe may have blown up (or jumped into a black hole), but it will take many millenniums for the light to reach us, or stop reaching us. BTW, a galaxy doesn't light up like its having its picture took at the corner studio. But, If you look at it long enough you can almost hear it roar. Sounds sort of like an approaching freight train doesn't it? Everything seems to sound like that. Must have something to do with chicken.
Some of the guys here know more than 1000 guys like me will ever know about these things. What they know is, the principles behind the theories. Its how the theories are often presented as knowledge that is the problem.
The question is, WHY? As they say in politics, follow the money, prestige, or power.

Sounds like you want your science to be simple and easy to understand, based mostly on what you can see or imagine. Sorry, that is not how science works. That may be how religion works, but religion is not science, which requires a rigorous examination of evidence, a lot of measurements and mathematical calculations and a great deal of discussions. There are people who have so-called alternative theories, for example, the "electric universe" proponents, who frequently pop up in this forum and are met with collective eye-rollings.

Again, I love space and its all consuming darkness, I love honesty and its all revealing light, more! The photos are lovely.
Keep asking questions, the all seeing eyes must render their replies. Sometimes, they are even right!
May Peace and Love bless you ALL, and light your universe beyond all understanding. Its worth more than all the universes combined.
PB

neufer wrote:(Loss of angular momentum due to gravitational radiation will doom you eventually, however.)

Chris Peterson wrote:there is no significant inflow of material into the center of spiral galaxies, and black holes don't generally suck things up.

apodman wrote:If I put more than one topic in a single post, I generally put a "---" dividing line between them to let the reader know I'm starting a separate thought. It is economical and effective.

mark swain wrote:Oh Right.
For a minute , Taking a look at the image of the milky way, one would think of a very complex center .