Starship Asterisk*

Anyone want to talk about cosmological voids? A lot comes up on a Google search but I can't get an answer there on here as to why galaxies closest to void boundaries align themselves parallel to the surface of voids. However, I have seen a computer simulation which accounts for what is thought to be galaxies inside the voids .. that the voids begin as small roughly spherical units which merge into large more spherical units. I think the galaxies are situated between the smaller voids .. not within any of them. I suggest the voids are expanding from being filled from within by anti-gravity. The chief formulater of my concept that voids are not formed from gravitational collapse of matter around them are the galaxies aligning themselves parallel to the surfaces. This alignment contradicts every photo of galaxies I have ever seen, galaxies lying every which way at every possible angle. If gravitational collapse were responsible the galaxies would remain free of any effect which would cause them to so align. To me, the alignment is the most striking cosmological observation yet .. far surpassing the finding of the 80 billion light year void. By the way, I have posted in other threads references and paragraphs from urls supporting what I am saying here.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Anyone want to talk about cosmological voids? A lot comes up on a Google search but I can't get an answer there on here as to why galaxies closest to void boundaries align themselves parallel to the surface of voids. However, I have seen a computer simulation which accounts for what is thought to be galaxies inside the voids .. that the voids begin as small roughly spherical units which merge into large more spherical units. I think the galaxies are situated between the smaller voids .. not within any of them. I suggest the voids are expanding from being filled from within by anti-gravity. The chief formulater of my concept that voids are not formed from gravitational collapse of matter around them are the galaxies aligning themselves parallel to the surfaces. This alignment contradicts every photo of galaxies I have ever seen, galaxies lying every which way at every possible angle. If gravitational collapse were responsible the galaxies would remain free of any effect which would cause them to so align. To me, the alignment is the most striking cosmological observation yet .. far surpassing the finding of the 80 billion light year void. By the way, I have posted in other threads references and paragraphs from urls supporting what I am saying here.

IMO this is not science, and therefore doesn't belong in a forum for discussing astronomy.

IMO, it's an attempt to reopen a topic already locked by Nereid. See here.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Nereid suggested I ask in the forum for an explanation as to why spirals galaxies lie parallel to the borders of voids .. so, I'm asking.

This seems like the wrong place to be asking, however. Isn't there an open discussion on that topic?

In any case, do they lie parallel to the borders of voids? References?

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Nereid suggested I ask in the forum for an explanation as to why spirals galaxies lie parallel to the borders of voids .. so, I'm asking.

This seems like the wrong place to be asking, however. Isn't there an open discussion on that topic?

In any case, do they lie parallel to the borders of voids? References?

The open discussion was closed. Nereid made her suggestion after that closure. Yes, according to simulation they do lie parallel.

Simulation of parallel galaxies .. sorry I can't find the url.

"Using the Millennium N-body Simulation we explore how the shape and angular momentum of galaxy dark matter haloes surrounding the largest cosmological voids are oriented. We find that the major and intermediate axes of the haloes tend to lie parallel to the surface of the voids, whereas the minor axis points preferentially in the radial direction. We have quantified the strength of these alignments at different radial distances from the void centres. The effect of these orientations is still detected at distances as large as 2.2 Rvoid from the void centre. Taking a subsample of haloes expected to contain disc-dominated galaxies at their centres we detect, at the 99.9 per cent confidence level, a signal that the angular momentum of those haloes tends to lie parallel to the surface of the voids. Contrary to the alignments of the inertia axes, this signal is only detected in shells at the void surface (1 < R < 1.07 Rvoid) and disappears at larger distances. This signal, together with the similar alignment observed using real spiral galaxies, strongly supports the prediction of the Tidal Torque theory that both dark matter haloes and baryonic matter have acquired, conjointly, their angular momentum before the moment of turnaround."

aristarchusinexile wrote:Simulation of parallel galaxies .. sorry I can't find the url.

The complete paper can be found here.

What the paper demonstrates is that in a large numerical simulation, galaxies near the edges of voids have the angular momentum vector of their dark matter halos aligned generally parallel to the void wall (that is, the disk of the galaxy is perpendicular to the wall). They compare this to a smaller sample of observed baryonic (visible) galaxy discs near void edges and confirm a similar alignment. The paper itself answers your question about the reason for the alignment, since the results are consistent with an established theory, called the Tidal Torque theory, that explains how protohalos (mainly dark matter) acquired their original angular momentum from interactions between adjacent density fluctuations in the early Universe.

This paper provides supportive evidence for an early Universe with density fluctuations, for the most popular model of galaxy formation, and for the strength of the Millennium N-body simulation for modeling the structure of the Universe.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Nereid suggested I ask in the forum for an explanation as to why spiral galaxies lie parallel to the borders of voids .. so, I'm asking.

This question and its answer have been moved to here.

Seeing as how that thread is locked I will have to respond to the answer by saying "gobbledeegook" here.
Anyway, my question was not necessary as I have my own answers which perfectly answer my alternative creation theory .. thanks to everyone for their stimulus which led to the answer to what has been a casual, 50 year quest. Did I mention I was given the nickname 'Sputnick' in elementary school for my interest in astronomy? Just a little life history, that's all.

Hello Sputnick!

Where the heck have you been??!!?? Boy am I glad you're back. Some joker going by the moniker aristarchusinexile has been on this wild kick about voids and such and no one seems to be able to convince him otherwise. Maybe you can talk some sense into him. Not to mention the fact that your moniker, to me anyway, is much easier to type!

astrolabe wrote:Hello Sputnick!

Where the heck have you been??!!?? Boy am I glad you're back. Some joker going by the moniker aristarchusinexile has been on this wild kick about voids and such and no one seems to be able to convince him otherwise. Maybe you can talk some sense into him. Not to mention the fact that your moniker, to me anyway, is much easier to type!

Hey Sputnick - Ari here .. listen to Astro's word, man
he's like got the right plan
this ain't no wham bam thank you mam
this is a real Astronomy Slam
I mean a real place to outpace the concensus
So get on the bus and look to the stars Gus
you'll see the void is no android
it's a real Noid
a spheroid
that's like a round Noid from the planet Svengalioxygifferus
where the bus drivers are on strike - oh
that's Ottawa, Canada ..
my mistake

Thanks for the tip, Astro .. ya just gotta watch out fer them impersonacators

aristarchusinexile wrote:Did I mention I was given the nickname 'Sputnick' in elementary school for my interest in astronomy? Just a little life history, that's all.

Did I mention I was called a daredevil as a kid because of my high risk activities that commonly ended with contusions, abrasions, lacerations and broken bones? But that doesn't qualify me as a red clad vigilante by night and a blind lawyer by day.

My point is regardless of what my interests are or may have been, they don't qualify me as an expert. I, too, have had a long abiding interest in astronomy and astrophysics, but I would not propose that my speculations on the nature of the universe are theories deserving of the attention afforded generally accepted theories without hard evidence to back them up. I could not and would not claim that my ideas are deserving of the same support afforded the experts.

I once thought about getting a PhD in philosophy so no one could tell me I'm wrong. 8)

Okay Daredevil - I dare you to challenge forum's head honchos to open up the forum to free speech and open discussion .. and I'll skip the 'double dare' and go straight to the Triple Dare to the power of googolplex .. and hope you're wearing a motorcycle helmet.

By the way .. I just mentioned a little of my history as a passing aside .. not hoping it would show me authoritative.
And you know what? I really don't care what anyone thinks of my idea, because I know my anti-gravity bubble expansion theory is the way it happened, and that's all that's important .. it's just handy that it shows up on a Google search.

Here's an interesting url - http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ing-1.html

aristarchusinexile wrote:Okay Daredevil - I dare you to challenge forum's head honchos to open up the forum to free speech and open discussion ..

It already is. But this isn't the Wild West. Any society needs rules to avoid anarchy, and it's no different here. This is a scientific forum (and society), and the rule is simple- keep the discussion scientific. There's some latitude there, but it doesn't extend to making up things like "anti-gravity". There has to be a basis for an idea (other than personal philosophy), and it needs to be open to scientific analysis. Ideas that go against mainstream scientific thinking require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, this isn't the correct forum to discuss the idea.

This isn't the place to discuss redefining science! It is what it is, and it works.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Okay Daredevil - I dare you to challenge forum's head honchos to open up the forum to free speech and open discussion ..

It already is. But this isn't the Wild West. Any society needs rules to avoid anarchy, and it's no different here. This is a scientific forum (and society), and the rule is simple- keep the discussion scientific. There's some latitude there, but it doesn't extend to making up things like "anti-gravity". There has to be a basis for an idea (other than personal philosophy), and it needs to be open to scientific analysis. Ideas that go against mainstream scientific thinking require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, this isn't the correct forum to discuss the idea.

This isn't the place to discuss redefining science! It is what it is, and it works.

The forum's currently accepted model of what science is must not be observed as such by most people, Chris, because there are comments on the lact of productivity of the site .. the lack of viewers' involvement in the forum. I suggest you read the life story of Michael Faraday as for an excellent view of when science is science and when it is not.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Okay Daredevil - I dare you to challenge forum's head honchos to open up the forum to free speech and open discussion ..

It already is. But this isn't the Wild West. Any society needs rules to avoid anarchy, and it's no different here. This is a scientific forum (and society), and the rule is simple- keep the discussion scientific. There's some latitude there, but it doesn't extend to making up things like "anti-gravity". There has to be a basis for an idea (other than personal philosophy), and it needs to be open to scientific analysis. Ideas that go against mainstream scientific thinking require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, this isn't the correct forum to discuss the idea.

This isn't the place to discuss redefining science! It is what it is, and it works.

The forum's currently accepted model of what science is must not be observed as such by most people, Chris, because there are comments on the lact of productivity of the site .. the lack of viewers' involvement in the forum. I suggest you read the life story of Michael Faraday as for an excellent view of when science is science and when it is not.

What?

P.S. Off Topic. Needs to go somewhere else.

aristarchusinexile wrote: The forum's currently accepted model of what science is must not be observed as such by most people,..

Unfortunately "most people" are scientific illiterate, therefore they don't know what real science requires.

Gary

starnut wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote: The forum's currently accepted model of what science is must not be observed as such by most people,..

Unfortunately "most people" are scientific illiterate, therefore they don't know what real science requires.

Gary

From my reading I find that most scientists are scientific illiterates, however, the book I referred to does not require scientific literacy. Unfortunately, it's title will be an automatic turnoff for concensus people as it is "Electric Universe" .. having nothing whatever to do with the Plasma people. Just a WONDERFUL read! A real mind awakener.